I fail to understand how Roberts could decide that the “Personal Mandate” is a tax when the case was not argued by the Obama’s lawyers in that way. Is this what it’s come to? Judges re-arguing cases the way they prefered them to be argued? Seems to me any first year law student would get ripped for this.
Actually they did argue that on a secondary level.
Judicial Activism.
Oh, wait, protecting citizens from crazed legislators and an imperial executive branch is what Roberts considers judicial activism.
Some bad Supreme Court precedent has come from decisions where one side failed to make the best arguments, with the consequence that the Court issued a decision which effectively foreclosed the argument that was not made (because the side failing to make it lost), or else issued a decision based on a totally fallacious argument (because the court realized that the side that made the argument should probably have won for other reasons). What the Court should do in such cases, IMHO, would be to offer up their evaluation of the arguments made thus far, and inform both sides of what better arguments would be. Some people might interpret such behavior as being a sign of "bias", but having the Supreme Court tell the side that should probably win to make the right argument so it can win, would be far better than letting that side win with a bad argument.
How would it be right for a Supreme Court justice to base his decision on the argument the lawyers make vs. the actual content of the law? By that logic, Obama could argue to the court that DOMA should be upheld because a purple polka-dotted dinosaur came to him and told him so. What the lawyers say doesn't determine what is or isn't constitutional, only what's in the content of the law.