Roberts: Mandate "Not A Tax" To Be Considered By SCOTUS , "Tax" To Be Constitutional?

Regarding Chief Justice Roberts's majority opinion, libertarian Michael S. Rozeff made an astute observation on Lew Rockwell today:

The Supreme Court says that the fine is not a tax for one purpose (getting the case to be considered despite the Anti-Injunction Act) and is a tax for another purpose (the Constitution). The relevant portion of a paragraph reads:

"The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a 'penalty,' not a 'tax.' That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit."

Unbelievable!

By the way, Roberts takes anti-seizure medication that has been known to reduce cognition. In fact, the New York Times pointed out in 2007 that the Chief Justice's decision to take the medication was a difficult one, precisely due to this side effect:

The decision will involve weighing the risk of more seizures against the risk of side effects from the drugs. Major seizures can be a frightening and traumatic experience for patients and family members. Patients are advised to avoid heights and not to swim alone, and many states bar them from driving until they can provide evidence that the disease is under control.

But the drugs can have troubling side effects, including drowsiness or insomnia, weight loss or weight gain, rashes, irritability, mental slowing and forgetfulness. Many patients can be treated with minimal side effects, doctors say, but it may take trial and error to find the right drug.

Unbelievable indeed.