Did not the Zero government defend their atrocious health control law on the basis of the Commerce Clause? Did not the Zero himself repeatedly deny that it would be a massive tax increase?
Why then did the SCOTUS grant them relief that they did not request? If they did not ask that the law be funded with a "tax", what contortions did Roberts et al have to engage in to give the government an escape hatch?
In legal proceedings I have witnessed, judges will not give you what you do not ask for.
I smell a dead rat.
The gov’t argued primarily that the commerce clause covers the mandate.
They argued as a backup that it was “necessary and proper.”
They argued as a backup backup that it was a tax.
Roberts bit on the backup backup.
There is supposedly a principle that if one can construe a law in multiple ways, and one of them is constitutional, then it should be found constitutional.
Robert legislated from the bench. Unconstitutional. WHO has power to correct this?