The court, as an institution, didn't sign onto Justice Roberts' bizarre interpretation. It constitutes only an "advisory opinion" as to why he voted as he did.
No other justice concurred. Ergo, there is no existing ruling that the penalty is a tax.
If there’s no existing ruling, how does the lawsuit stand? Can’t they argue it didn’t have to originate in the house?
(Sorry if these are dumb questions. Law appears to be mental juggling of facts that can change over time.)
This all just seems to be so Kafkaesque. Its a tax for the nanosecond it need to be a tax to allow the law to stand, but not and instant longer, therefore the origination clause does not apply. The American people didn’t want nor like this law when it was proposed. They did not like the way the system was manipulated to cram it down our throats, and they do not like the law in its implementation, and yet, we cannot do away with it. Its like toe fungus.