I think it has to be the wimp theory. Look at his wording. Roberts says it “may reasonably be characterized as a tax.”
It’s obvious from this language that Roberts was inclined to stretch the meaning. In other words, he couldn’t leave it like it actually is, he had to work with it some.
Why? Lack of fortitude.
You know maybe I’ll put forth a new theory here: the Midwestern Modesty one...
Roberts is from Indiana, right? My husband is from a small town in S. Illinois, and I’ve found it to be a real culture shock, being from Alaska myself.
His people are very very big on modesty, not being too big for your britches, never overstepping your role, etc. I don’t know if I can pinpoint exactly what I mean here - but I’ve found people from his part of the country to be overly concerned with what others think of them, in a way the gives them sort of this humble nature by force - as in “be humble or be castigated for being otherwise.”
Could Roberts be so utterly Midwestern that this helped turned him into a huge wimp in the face of all of the pressure?
Flame away if you are an audacious Midwesterner who begs to differ!
So, he didn’t say it was a tax. He said it “may reasonsbly be characterized as a tax”. obama will “characterize” it to be whatever the king wants it to be.
If I were a U.S. Supreme Court justice, I would have recused myself from the case simply on the basis of that bizarre statement by that dingbat Nancy Pelosi that "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."
My take as a Supreme Court justice would have been:
"Why the hell should I spend five seconds of my life reading a legal brief about a case involving a Federal law that the f#%&ing Speaker of the House didn't even read before sending it to the floor for a vote??"