[kenmcg]

So Roberts would have to rule against himself? Doubt it.

[ModelBreaker]

“So Roberts would have to rule against himself? Doubt it.”

He would not. The new lawsuit is based on the fact that Roberts held the ACA constitutional because it contained a mandate with a financial penalty. Roberts ruled the penalty was a tax and that under Congress taxing power, it was constitutional. Silly ruling.

But after his ruling, the financial penalty was eliminated. No penalty=no tax=unconstitutional. So he could hold the law unconstitutional with logic that is completely consistent with his previous ruling.

It may be that Roberts twists himself into another pretzel to hold the law constitutional. But he already cut off the rationale that it is a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause. So in that sense, he could rule against himself on the Commerce Clause dicta in NFIB v. Sibelius, were he to hold that the Commerce Clause validates the ACA.

Roberts will almost certainly be the deciding vote.

[Svartalfiar]

So Roberts would have to rule against himself? Doubt it.

To save it this time, yes. That's the whole point - his convoluted method of saving Obamacare was based on the individual penalty payment (the 'tax'). Now that it's been eliminated (set to '0'), his whole reasoning for saving it from last time is gone, therefore if he sticks to his old reasoning, he'll rule this time against Obamacare. He'd have to rule against his old self to save it this time.