Originally Posted by rubicon

If you read my other thread you would have known that it was not, "the defeat" if that is how you dwsire to describe it, but that Roberts allowed infracture to occur and ultimately created bad law.

Once the majority decided that the individual mandate amounted to a tax vis a vis and not falling under the commerce clause Roberts had an obligation to reset oral argument. He did not. Also Justice Kagan as solictor General had heavy participation in the developing the governments case for the eventful Ssupreme court Jearing. Kagan's involvement was a clear "conflict of interest" and she should have recused herself. she did not, nor did Chief Roberts speak up. Finally the majority finding the individual mandate as being a tax , cheif Justice roberts had an obligation to involke the Anti Injunction Act. He did not. the anti Injunction Act requires that with a finding of a tax, the tax has to be first imposed before a lawsuit can commence. Hence this case should not have been heard until sometime after 2014.

So from a personal view I find the making of bad law always to be distasteful