It wasn’t “flimsy reasoning” it was completely fallacious reasoning. Roberts held that two contradictory ideas can BOTH be true i.e. its a tax, its not a tax. His ruling was blatantly ridiculous.
If Roberts thought the mandate was OK under the government’s taxing power he should have said so and told them to go back and rewrite it as tax law. But no..In a classic case of judicial activism, he rewrote the law himself.
Roberts is on epilepsy meds that can mess up your mind. Michael Savage has been talking about this. What is galling is that Roberts is very pleased with himself and has been wisecracking about his idiotic decision that threw the other Justices for a loop. They were struck dumb.