The law was not written or passed as a tax, therefore calling it one is an example of judicial activism. If the law had been written as a tax, it would have been defeated. Trying to paint a smiley face on this monstrous bill and the court’s upholding it is preposterous, even if you were “in the courtroom”.
It is not judicial activism - the Administration argued before the court this was a tax and that is what the court ruled on.
The court just declared Obama and the Democrat controlled (at the time) Congress to all be liars.
You nailed it. The political cost of the law being labeled a tax during the legislative process may have prevented it from passing. Roberts plays this word game, and this author pretends like the political liability of it now being declared a tax will play it’s original legitimate role after the fact. It can’t. Even then I don’t see any limiting principle even if you call it a tax. The government can compel you do anything as long as it has some negative label attached to it such as “tax” because that is politically limiting? Close the court. They no longer have any purpose if the only check on the legislative branch is the voting booth.