badgenome said:
I just don't get why it isn't a tax regarding the Anti-Injunction Act, and then it suddenly becomes one. According to Roberts, at least. I think he just wanted to write that snazzy line about how it isn't the Supreme Court's place to protect people from the consequences of their political choices, and figured it would be a whole lot better if it were in a decision upholding Obamacare instead of striking it down. |
I think it has more to do with practical reasoning so people weren't freaking out over whether or not it was going to be consitutional for another 3 years while trying to implement everything... and argueably getting a ruling on the books about the commerce on the books in the next four years.
I think the ruling there was "You can't play word games with the US consitution, but you can with US law."








