The article doesn’t make sense. SCOTUS is not just another political branch.
They are if they vote for their side without regard to the law.
If the other four conservative justices threw a tantrum because Roberts saw things differently, they were rooting for their team, not weighing the issue intelligently.
That doesn’t impose a payment, it simply transfers some of the payment to a different government account.
But reasonable people can disagree on what the law is, which is why we have courts, and why we rarely have 9-0 decisions.
Why? How can you say that? You can’t discern their motives from that. They may simply disagree with the other side about the law.
You could just as easily say that the four liberal justices were “rooting for their team” too. Ironic - your comment itself is politically biased.
Not at all. What I’m saying is that the other conservative justices didn’t even address Roberts. They were petulant.
Penalties for non-payment or late filing of tax returns?
Not germane, but thought I’d point it out - we actually have a great many 9-0 decisions. In fact, most terms something like half of the cases are unanimous. Here’s one cite about court unity: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/us/in-supreme-court-term-striking-unity-on-major-cases-642837/
Just back from vacation. I’d suggest you take those awesome reading powers of yours and read the entire opinion, not just the one sentence you are fixated on. You can start with the portions I cited for you. The fact that it is a “fairly possible” interpretation means that they will assume that’s the correct one, since it would otherwise be unconstitutional. That’s the part you seem to be missing, but I don’t mind pointing it out again for you (it’s like you’re unable to read the actual words or something).
Again, SCOTUS didn’t say, “Since it resembles a tax, we must treat it as such, even allowing for the fact that it might not be.” They said, “Because it resembles a tax, we must consider it one. It’s a tax.”
You’re basically just imposing your desired interpretation on what they say because it is what you want to believe. They don’t assume that interpretation is the correct one. In fact, they don’t even assume it is the most natural one. The whole point of what I have quoted to you is that they don’t need to decide what it actually is in order to decide on its constitutionality.
Your point-of-view has exactly zero textual support and indeed you haven’t provided any but you are welcome to keep it if it will allow you to believe what your ideology dictates.
Perhaps, though I would need to read the whole decision to verify that. But petulant still doesn’t equal political, or rooting for your team. Not at all. It’s just petulant.
Very interesting article, thanks.