The point is he didn’t. We say we don’t want activist judges, but you do. He interpreted the law based on their argument about it being a tax. He did his job now he is telling us to do ours.
That's why he viewed it as not a tax for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.
I N S A N I T Y
Just the opposite, Roberts is the one being activist because it being a tax was not in the original argument. SCOTUS read into what it was to claim it was a tax and therefore justified. The administration in its case argued it was a fine, not a tax.
In filings before the Supreme Court, White House lawyers have adopted two seemingly contradictory stances, The Hill reported last year: the administration wants an immediate ruling, so it argues that the penalty shouldn't be considered a tax because federal law prescribes courts from blocking taxes before they go into effect.
Your wrong, so wrong. He rewrote the law from the bench, defining the mandate as nothing more then a tax. The administration argued that this was a fine, until the last day of arguments with the supremes. How can a congressly elected fine now be viewed as a tax? It was passed as a fine, how does Roberts justify this? No one will answer me, crickets, crickets.
True, he did but that wasn't the argument he found a loop hole and went for it out side the arguments presented to him.
BUT i want to say thank you for keeping a positive outlook. Really that is important.