I don't expect Roberts to overturn on this one either, because technically, the bill originated in the House and that will be his escape clause.
However, the true Constitutional issue is whether bills just act as numbered generic containers originating in either chamber, or whether "origination" includes the original content of the bill. Is a House bill, amended in the Senate to remove its title and all of its content and then replaced with entirely new Senate content, still considered a House-originated bill?
What's at stake is the plenary power of each chamber. The Senate has "advice and consent" and treaty ratification power that the House does not. The House has revenue origination and impeachment power that the Senate does not. If the Senate is allowed to gut an ordinary House bill with revenue content of its own making, then it has usurped a Constitutionally separated power of the House.
Roberts opened up this quagmire when he first legislated that the individual mandate penalty was a tax, something that nobody argued. In order to defend that decision, Robert now has to strip the House of its unique revenue origination power.
Mr. Balls and Strikes would be personally shredding the Constitution to pieces. My guess is that we'll never see Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services leave the DC Circuit Court, just to protect Roberts' pretzel.
-PJ
bttt