And....The fact that Roberts found the arguement that the mandate is not a tax for the purpose of the anti-Injunction Act, but is a tax for constitutional purposes is absurd. The 4 consevatives on the court turned their back on Roberts for good reason. Are you really trying to defend Roberts on this ? It’s obvious what tricks Roberts pulled in allowing Obmacare to stand.
I figure that is just means that Roberts uses a two step review process. Of course he could have held that it was a tax, and therefore no parties had standing until they had paid the tax, per the Anti Injunction act. It would have been silly to me if after all the arguments and lower court rulings they held that it was a tax, and couldn’t be considered.
I would have liked to have it ruled unconstitutional, as the Constitution gives the government no authority to meddle in health insurance. Of course that would have opened a big can of worms, because then the fed gov would also have no constitutional authority to regulate agriculture, mining, labor, education, housing and urban development, health and human services, the environment, except as necessary and proper for other constitutional powers. (ie, they could provide health insurance to military or DoD civilians).
They were not ready to be quite that activist. I don’t blame him. I also suspect that he was warned that the most lefty lawyers in the land would have gone over his adoption with a very fine toothed comb if he voted the wrong way. These Chicago types don’t scruple much.