I actually agree with their reasoning, if only because it's following one of the most cherished and abused methodologies that people like to drag up whenever they argue anything the Supreme Court decides: "What were the Founding Fathers trying to do here?" or rather, in this case, "What were the original law makers trying to do here?". In this example it's perfectly clear: they wanted people to be able to afford the healthcare they are mandating because the point of the ACA was to get more people insured. The wording was to intended to encourage states to get involved in the process in a way that was for the benefit of their residents, not to give the states a method to deny people the means to afford healthcare. Why would it when the ACA was designed around getting people access to healthcare? Why force people without it to endure hardships because of bad government until they got a chance to remove the problem YEARS after it started?
Congress can try to legislate us a moonbase without a space program, that doesn't mean it's possible, and it doesn't mean the supreme court can say "well OBVIOUSLY they meant to have a space program, despite them saying not to have a space program, because it won't work without a space program" because it's not the role of the supreme court to write legislation. They can either uphold a law, or overturn it. They're not supposed to (and I hesitate to use the old cliche) legislate from the bench.
The law intended to shift some of the financial burden of the ACA to the states, so that it could come in under the magic number of $1 trillion on paper (when it's an open secret it will and is costing several times more). That was part of what got it passed. Just like the "This is not a tax" assurances. Just like the "you can keep your plan/doctor if you like it" assurances. None of it was true, but now thanks to the SCOTUS, it's baked in, and will leave a huge exit wound when it explodes.
Ironically, this is probably the most compelling argument the gun lobby could use to settle the 2nd Amendment once and for all. Whatever my harder left compatriots try to argue, the point of the 2nd Amendment was clearly to allow the people the means to fight a corrupt government and to prevent it from trying to remove them as a threat. If the logic behind the ACA decision was applied here, it would clearly be in favor of the Gun Lobby. We reap what we sow and this ruling has all sorts of fun/horribly awful applications.
It's even worse, it means they can decide whatever they want on any topic, regardless of the wording or intent of the law. Because it's no longer what the law says, or what the law means, it's what the current political desire is that matters.
In any event, this entire thing has been the Supreme Court deciding that the ACA can't work the way it's designers tried to sell it from Day One. We already had them decide that it's legal to tax people for this (and the only way ti could work), despite the Obama's administration's constant portrayals that it wasn't a tax. It's not surprising that they'd tell them again that "No, it works like THIS, and this method is perfectly legal so SUCK IT." Maybe it's time to start writing some amendments to more narrowly define the role of the Supreme Court?
I like what Scalia said in his dissent - "We've rewritten this law 3 times now, it ought to be called SCOTUScare."
