That’s great, but what about when they levy a tax on us for not having an electric car? Or a solar powered water heater? Then what?
That's what the CJ meant by his comment that they were not opining on the soundness of the act. Elections have consequences. At least in theory any Congress wanting to enact a "tax" on not having an electric car or solar powered water heater would have to present it as such. Hopefully an informed citizenry would keep them in check. If we don't want a tyrant - whether it's our guy or the enemy's - we better all get involved.
I sent my sister away with her hands over her ears and shaking her head like a little kid yesterday when I tried to make her face up to what this law really means. No more miss nice guy trying to keep the family peace. We all have a job to do - now go pay your tax!!!
In a way, they already do.
You can get tax credits for complying with their social engineering. Not complying forfeits the credit and so, you pay more taxes for not doing what they want.
The precedent is set. They cannot use the Commerce Clause to tax. A tax must be plainly stated as such, apply to everyone AND can be rescinded by Congress and/or refused by the States.
All the what-ifs cannot change the precedent. Since litigation can be brought once the the law is implemented, there will eventually be voluminous case law, as well. Statists have elevated case law and precedent above the Constitution, per se. This ruling bites that in the butt.