[SumProVita]

From Page 4 of the Opinion:

“(a) The Affordable Care Act describes the “[s]hared responsibilitypayment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach,“[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application.” United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287,
294. Pp. 33–35.
(b)
Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax.”

If it walks like a duck...and talks like a duck...

[Jim from C-Town]

But it doesn't walk, talk, look or act like a tax. It acts as a penalty for not entering into a contract with a separate private party.

[jurroppi1]

they specifically state that it is the FUNCTIONAL approach that they rely on.

Specifically because of that, they get away with this.

I think a lot of people on our side are being too smart by half in forgetting that. The section you quote specifically underlines part of what I discussed in my previous post to you; that the language in the bill is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction act (so they - SCOTUS were able to proceed to judge the case on the merits instead of declining to hear further argument).

That’s the beauty of it from the Liberal Democrat’s angle - they get to have it both ways because the court said just that.