... pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute. He construed the penalty imposed on those without health insurance as a tax, which permitted him to sustain the statute as a valid exercise of the taxing power; had he treated the payment as the statute did – as a penalty – he would have had to invalidate the statute as lying beyond Congress’s commerce power … [A] judge who adopts an interpretation inconsistent with the text fails to enforce the statute that commanded majority support. If the majority did not enact a "tax," interpreting the statute to impose a tax lacks democratic legitimacy … it is illegitimate for the Court to distort either the Constitution or a statute to achieve what it deems a preferable result.
Still think she is not an originalist (textulist).
"Still think she is not an originalist (textulist)."
I don't care for that answer myself. I like the last line but it's full of overthink and justifications that could easily go the wrong way when it really matters. I would much rather hear something like the ACA is so far beyond the scope of government as laid out by our founders it can be considered nothing short of a Constitutional abomination.