**This interpretation shows the Court remonstrating Democrats, saying, “You passed a tax, by God — now you call it a tax.”**
So true!
The problem with Roberts’ interpretation is this -— THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE DRAFTERS OF THIS OBAMACARE WERE CLEAR.
Everyone, from Obama to his defenders, DID NOT CALL IT A TAX. It was written as a PENALTY.
Obama himself explicitly said to Stephanopolous when interviewed that he REJECTED the notion that it was a tax.
Which is — If you don’t get healthcare, you will be assessed a PENALTY.
So, how can Roberts call it a tax when a tax was clearly not the intent?
He should have said this — the bill as written is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. If you want it to be constitutional, redraft the bill and call it a TAX explicitly, BUT NOT IN THIS PRESENT FORM.
But Roberts did not do that, he essentially RE-IMAGINED the bill (which explicitly said it was a penalty) and then called it a tax and then pronounced that it would be OK.
If that isn’t legislating from the bench, I don’t know what is.
Roberts turned out to be a huge disappointment IMHO.