I am curious, however, if ObaMao's side even argued that it was a tax, in direct defiance of what they did when the law was implemented.
If they did not, then Robert's ruling is all the more absurd because it is being based on reasoning not even offered in ObaMao's power grab defense.
You have FReepmail.
“I am curious”
...and I can certainly understand your curiosity, however it appears that it is in part related to a desire to understand how a liberal making a truly absurd decision, arrives at the disastrous result.
I liken it to attempting to understand why a killer kills, or a Rapist Rapes. Who the hell cares. They have committed a punishable offense, and punishment is the next step, following the arrest and conviction, of course.
Yes, they did - as a secondary argument. It lead to the following amusing exchange on the first day of oral arguments (pp 31-32 of the transcript):
"JUSTICE ALITO: General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax.
Has the Court ever held that something that is a tax for purposes of the taxing power under the Constitution is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act?
GENERAL VERRILLI: No, Justice Alito,... "
But that is precisely what the court did in this case!
wow. funny & scary.