Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote the specific language of Congress by claiming in his ObamaCare ruling that the penalty that the lawmakers had clearly attached to the individual mandate was actually a tax. It was the only way in which the Affordable Care Act could be saved; for the Court rejected the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clause defenses as constitutional grounds for the existence of the law.
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.”
No, Mr. Chief Justice. Section 5000A may be reasonably re-written BY CONGRESS as a tax, but it may not be READ that way because that is NOT the way in which Congress WROTE it! A great many laws may be reasonably re-written into something they are not, thus bringing them into line with the personal views of justice, propriety, or constitutionality held by the judge preforming the artful edit. But that is not the proper role of a Supreme Court Justice.