Replies

It doesn’t matter where the analysis is posted. Read it across the net. And then read the decision for yourself.

There is no doubt in my mind that Roberts switch his vote.

I can assure you that the 4 in the dissent were not happy with this outcome. It’s a betrayal to them because everything had already been sorted out.

What is yet to be discovered is if they left clues on purpose because there were pissed or if they just didn’t have time to fully rewrite and edit the opinions .

200 years from now people are going to be wondering about this

“Finally, we must observe that rewriting §5000A as a tax in order to sustain its constitutionality would force us to confront a difficult constitutional question: whether this is a direct tax that must be apportioned among the States according to their population. Art. I, §9, cl. 4. Perhaps it is not (we have no need to address the point); but the meaning of the Direct Tax Clause is famously unclear, and its application here is a question of first impression that deserves more thoughtful consideration.”

Well,it must not be a tax since Scotus didn’t discuss whether this had to be apportioned among states. RIGHT?????

No, ...

“The dissenters are saying that construing the mandate as a tax would require them to address a constitutional question that they don’t have to address. But the only reason the Court would not have to address this question is if the majority in fact refused to construe the mandate as a tax – which is exactly what the Court’s majority ended up doing.”

The opinions are a very poorly worded because Roberts changed the vote.