Yes. At the SAME time, however, he has created a new area to be taxed that did not exist before this decision. This tax does not fall into the previously known taxable areas. There is no provision in the constitution for taxing INACTIVITY.
He rewrote this law on the bench. What was called a mandate in the bill was objectionable to him SO HE RENAMED the mandate and now calls it a tax. The problem with this is- THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS IN THE BILL.
Whether or not we "win" in November, whether or not we repeal this monster, the court's finding stands and there is now an entire new way to tax citizens that DID NOT EXIST. Is this an excise tax? Is this income tax? No- it's an inactivity tax.
Politicians will come and go, elections will be won and lost. The inactivity tax will be with us- and various clever legislators will find ways to use it against we, the people.
So- while it's all well and good for Roberts to put it back in our laps- that was not his job. The instant he found the problems with the commerce clause in the law it was time to stop. Period. Did he? NOOOOOOOoooooo he did not. He contorted himself - he found a way to call this airplane a boat. Never mind that it is a boat never put on the water until now. Never mind that it looks exactly like an airplane. The people will believe it's a boat because I am a learned scholar.