[Talisker]

...the argument goes, Americans tend to fall in line with a perceived legal obligation, even when it is plainly against their self-interest to do so. We do what the law requires because it is lawful, without always pausing to calculate. It was the mandate, not just the penalty, that would avert disaster and bring people in.

Ah, but why is the "legal obligation" only "perceived" if it is "lawful"? And why should we "pause to calculate"? And especially, how can a "mandate" be a mandate if it can't be enforced, but if it CAN be enforced, how is the enforceable mandate NOT a penalty if it isn't paid?

Well, maybe because all ya'll Roberts-haters... let's see, how to put this... can't find your ass with both hands? don't know what you're talking about? Missed what Roberts said right in front of your faces? Are flat-out wrong about what you think the ruling means?

Yeah, something like that.

But lemme tellya, the writers of this article know exactly what Roberts did - that's why they can so carefully construct those squirrelly sentences I quoted above from them.

Want to know what they know? Want to bring your blood pressure down?

Then read: How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America

After all, if you're going to get mad, get mad about the right thing.

[bossmechanic]

I’m only an engineer... not a fancy pants lawyer.
Having fully read your treatise, I’m not sure if you’ve engaged in the equivalent of a judicial conspiracy rant or properly and accurately explained the workings of a brilliant mind.
When Roberts’ ruling came out and the hysterical screaming began, I was thoughtfully pleased that we could not be mandated to do something. I also agreed that Congress has the power to tax and therefore the power to remove taxes. And I agreed that it was up to us, the American people, to drive our own taxation system via our constitutionally provided political system. So I haven’t gone apepoop about Roberts legislating from the bench cause it seemed to me he specifically avoided that accusation and put responsibility squarely where it belongs.

So (correct me if I’m wrong}, individuals are technically free to ignore the tax knowing that while the IRS can bluster and posture, it knows full well it would lose any case whereby individuals are generalized as presumed corporations for the purpose of collection of taxes above and beyond the specific case of income tax.

This strikes me as an Occam’s Razor situation whereby many courts would side with the IRS. So how likely is it that Roberts’ brilliant loophole will prove effective?
Your response is eagerly awaited.