Tom Noonan

The conventional wisdom is that Mitt Romney was in a win-win situation on the Supreme Court decision. If the Court found it unconstitutional, he could say “I told you so,” providing one was willing to parse his numerous conflicting statements on the issue.  If they upheld it, he could argue that “you need me to repeal Obamacare” (which he has since said.)  But since the case turns on Chief Justice Roberts’ saying it was constitutional because it is a tax, how does Romney justify the individual mandate he achieved in Massachusetts as being an increase in taxes?  Now, I understand that Romney has demonstrated a remarkable ability to twist positions, both his own and the President’s, but won’t someone call him on this one?