[philman_36]

They re-wrote the law to fit their needs in order to make it Constitutional.

Here is the syllabus...

@NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS

What, in your opinion, was "rewritten"?
Here is the Court's opinion of how the bill was written...

The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.

I'm frankly shocked to see so many on here falling for it.
I don't feel like I'm falling for anything. I see a Justice who exposed an income tax that some in Congress were deliberately trying to hide from being recognized as such.
I think you need to read the decision again, but that's just my opinion.

[usconservative]

I don't feel like I'm falling for anything. I see a Justice who exposed an income tax that some in Congress were deliberately trying to hide from being recognized as such.

What you 'feel' is irrelevant to the discussion. Congress put into the legislation the words "mandate", "fine" and "penalty."

It was Roberts who re-wrote the bill to use the word TAX.

What you're referring to is the Court's opinion of how the bill was written, not the bill itself. You're trying to justify a bad conclusion by making a wrong argument.

Is that deliberate on your part or not?