[Mojave]

"Was he trying to deceive the people?" the judge asked.

A rhetorical, political, unprovable and legally meaningless question.

He quoted Drexel v Bailey and also the Linder case

No, his memorandum cited Cuccinelli paraphasing Drexel v Bailey and Linder. He then cited Sebelius in reply directly quoting States v. Sanchez 340 U.S. 42 (1950) where it stated that it "is beyond serious question that a tax does not cease to be valid merely because it regulates, discourages, or even definitely deters the activities taxed."

[publiusF27]

The question is rhetorical, but not legally meaningless. Sanchez and Sonzinsky specifically say that they are sustaining the taxing power, and that what is before them was NOT a regulatory penalty.

Congress and the President, both in speeches and by rejecting the word "tax" in favor of the word "penalty" in the final version of the bill, have specifically said that this is a penalty, not a tax.

I note that you did not address this point, nor the significance of it:

'Few principles of statutory construction are more compelling than the proposition that Congress does not intend sub silentio to enact statutory language that it has earlier discarded in favor of other language.'

Is the Court really going to go fishing around for a source of Congressional power that Congress itself specifically rejected?