This is not directed at Oldgrunt, but at whoever wrote that piece of garbage.
Total and complete sophistry. As I have documented elsewhere, the *Court* did nothing to "...strengthen the limitations of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause by a unanimous decision..." They left it entirely alone to maintain the status quo it has enjoyed for many decades as the most-abused and bastardized clause in the whole Constitution. ONLY Roberts wrote an opinion on the limitations he supposedly sees concerning the Commerce Clause. A singular opinion carries no weight whatsoever as precedent, and that's exactly what that section of Roberts' opinion is; singular to him.
Beyond that though, whoever wrote this piece of crap completely overlooks the precedent that the Court set for literally unlimited taxation for literally any punitive measure government may wish to impose on the citizenry. Don't like broccoli? Eat it or pay a tax. Prefer your cars to be relatively inexpensive and run forever under normal usage? Tough. Buy Government Motors products or pay a tax. Want to practice your religious beliefs as regards doctrinal restrictions on birth control, thereby having larger than "average" families? Fine. Have as many kids as you want, but after the first one, pay a tax on each subsequent child. Or better yet, avoid the tax and get an abortion.
The idiot who wrote that rubbish says that part of what makes Roberts' opinion such a "masterpiece" of legal reasoning is that it, "...will help Romney." Since when is it SCOTUS's job to pick sides in political contests, or to favor one candidate over another? How dense does someone have to be to even assert such a "benefit" to this ruling in light of the fact that its basis as a tax is found nowhere within its own text? I mean, this blithering blatherer is finding multiple instances of blatant constitutional usurpations, and holding them up as an "Atta Boy!" for John Roberts!
Anyone who buys this tripe is in a deeper sleep than before the ruling came out, which I would've never predicted was even possible.
Doesn't surprise me that this so-called "conservative lawyer" didn't sign his/her name to this idiocy. If there were any legal standards being applied in this country these days, s/he would likely be disbarred!