By “penciling in” the tax language necessary to satisfy his own requirement of constitutionality, Roberts behaved no differently from any liberal, activist judge so often criticized by conservatives for judicial malfeasance; that is, he cheated rather than rule against a personally favored piece of legislation.
The question is WHY? WHY did the Chief Justice defraud the Court and the American public rather than rule ObamaCare unconstitutional?
In the majority opinion, Roberts wrote: “The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A (the individual mandate) is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.”
As Justice Scalia writes in his dissent, “…Although this Court will often strain to construe legislation so as to save it against constitutional attack, it must not and will not carry this to the point of perverting the purpose of the statute…or judicially rewriting it.” In short, the Supreme Court must not “… rewrite [a] statute to be what it is not.”
So why did the Chief Justice do just that? Was it because:
1.) Roberts is so adamant about going down in history that he is willing to do it by making a ruling devastating to the liberty of the American people?
2.) Roberts is in reality a conservative activist? Knowing a majority of Americans favor the end of ObamaCare and its creators, he believed his ruling would rouse conservatives across the nation to the defeat of Obama and repeal of the law?
3.) Roberts actually believed what he did to be right and proper?
Chief Justice Roberts cunningly transformed the ObamaCare individual mandate penalty into a tax and then chose to ignore the necessity of defining the type of tax he had created. After all, giving a name to the tax would have required Roberts to show that Congress had the constitutional authority to impose and collect it!
Exactly why he did all of this, we may never know. If by reason of arrogance or misdirected activism, it would be alarming. If because he actually thought it right, it would be terrifying. After all, this man might be the chief justice for another 3 decades!