The first break from precedent was in declaring a penalty which had been repeatedly described as and called a penalty by its authors in the Senate is suddenly a 'tax', the very thing we had been repeatedly told by the authors of that part of the legislation and its proponents it most assuredly was NOT.
@Smokin Joe So far, so good. However, it really doesn't matter what the liars who wrote the law called it. A penalty is still a tax.
In doing so, Roberts effectively rewrote the law. That is not the job of the SCOTUS: it may rule on the Constitutionality of the law, but writing it is the domain of the Congress.
It doesn't matter whether you call it a penalty or a tax. The established legal precedent is that a penalty/tax cannot be challenged until it goes into effect. The question you should be asking yourself is 'Why haven't Republicans refiled the case with the Supreme Court now that the tax has gone into effect?"
A penalty for violating a law is one thing, a tax upon those who are in noncompliance is another. It is a fine difference when the law covers all citizens, but a difference, nonetheless.
I respect your argument. Truly, I do. However, it does not change the fact that the penalty had not yet gone into effect when the case came before the Court. It also does not change the fact that it is well within the authority of Congress to levy taxes and penalties. I may vehemently disagree with the decision Congress made, but they still have the power to do what they did. It is the responsibility of the fourth branch of government to do something to change it.
In addition, since the now Justice-deemed Revenue measure ("TAX") originated in the Senate, that, too is in violation of the Constitution, which specifies taxes and other revenue measures must originate in the House of Representatives. The Senate is free, of course to impose a penalty for the violation of a law, but not to impose taxes. That is the purview of the House of Representatives.
I agree wholeheartedly with this line of reasoning. Yes, the bill originated in the Senate. Yes, that makes the bill unconsitutional. Unfortunately, no on argued that point before the Court. We were had. Republicans wanted this just as much as Democrats did.
In addition, whether or not I have insurance is something I should not be forced to surrender for the purpose of being penalized (5th Amendment), and possibly a HIPAA violation as well. This angle was not pursued, because, after all, who would rule it was constitutional to be penalized for NOT buying something just because you were breathing and not engaging in any special activity which might require some mitigation of risk, and who would think the Supreme COurt of the United States of America ( 
Land of the free/Home of the Brave) would ever rule in favor of a tax for just being alive?--especially when we had been told for months the damned thing was a "PENALTY".
Agreed.
Roberts should have been kicked off the bench over that ruling, and still should be, IMHO.
The Republicans in Congress who sold us out should be the ones who get kicked out. I would have stood on the Senate floor for days with a water jug and a bucket to piss in reading
Atlas Shrugged in its entirety five, six, seven times or more just to prevent that bill from coming to a vote. Unfortunately, there wasn't a single Republican Senator who thought the same way.
