[abigkahuna]

Okay, someone tell me if I am wrong here. Roberts decided to make certain that the issue was not decided under the Commerce Clause and invented the issue as a Tax. Deciding to not appear the Court look partisan, he sided with the Liberals. In doing so, he changes their argument that the penalty was not a penalty, but a tax, thus negating the Commerce Clause argument.

I have read that Roberts wanted to roll back congressional intrusion under the Commerce Clause. So be that.

Now, since the law is a Tax, and all Tax bills need to come from the House and not the Senate, then this bill is this bill now unlawful because of that procedure taken by Harry Reid so many months ago.

So can the bill now be rolled back because from whence it came?

[free me]

Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito Dissent: 'We Cannot Rewrite the Statute to Be What It Is Not' "Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling."

[Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears]

“Deciding to not appear the Court look partisan, he sided with the Liberals.”

So if I understand you correctly, John Roberts voted for Marxism to be the law of the land because he wanted to seem “fair.”

What an honorable man.

Correction, what a walking piece of anti-American crap.

[crosshairs]

Okay, someone tell me if I am wrong here. Roberts decided to make certain that the issue was not decided under the Commerce Clause and invented the issue as a Tax. Deciding to not appear the Court look partisan, he sided with the Liberals. In doing so, he changes their argument that the penalty was not a penalty, but a tax, thus negating the Commerce Clause argument.

It seems to me the S.C. should have sent it back to congress and told them to re-write the bill and call it a tax, for it to be acceptable. Make congress call it a tax.