the ACA originated in The Senate.

And the Senate can not originate tax legislation - The House has to.

So, I'm wondering if the ACA can be brought in front of The Supreme Court again due to it having a 'tax' stipulation that was not originated in The House. ??????????

The act was reconciled in the Senate, but the initiation requirement is as a practical matter much weaker than you might think: it doesn't have to literally start in the house except in a particular formal sense.

I was a bit confused about it because I had read somewhere someone said it originated in The Senate and that could cause a problem.
Apparently 'they' were incorrect.

Thanks again,
Me

to get around just this issue.

The Senate will just amend by substitution an unrelated bill (post office naming, etc.) from the house before actually passing major bills like this.

Or do the Dems need to start hitting the fact that 8 out of 9 justices do not believe it is a tax? You know the GOP will be hitting the tax angle hard and heavy. After all they sell plenty of "tax and spend Democrat" bumper stickers.

The first question here (as in any case) was of standing (well, the very first is of jurisdiction, but as this was a case between states and the Federal government the jurisidiction was clear): do the petitioners have the standing to bring this suit in the first place. In general, you cannot sue the government over a tax that you have not yet paid: you have to pay it and then sue to get it back.

All nine justices agreed they did have standing, but for different reasons. The four liberals and three of the conservatives said there was standing because the mandate was a penalty rather than a tax, Thomas said there was standing because it could be considered either a penalty or a capitation, and Roberts said there was standing to sue because for the purpose of the Anti Injunction Act (that's the act that says you have no standing until you pay the tax, and that the petitioner has to be an individual taxpayer rather than a state on his behalf) the penalty is not a tax. So, really, we have eight and a half justices claiming the mandate is not a tax and one half of a justice claiming it is.

The cases that determined the commerce clause centered on people already engaged in the activity to be regulated. Since people who don't have insurance aren't engaged in the activity, calling it a tax was an end around the problem.

....but allows the penalty under the governments taxing authority.

A fine line was walked, apparently, but most people are ignoring that and calling it what they want.

The Court's Bush v. Gore standard of arbitrariness is being strictly followed.

"Just because we say so!" (and say so at this moment, regardless of things we may have said before) looks likely to be the constant theme of American law from here to the final breakup of the Empire.

These angel-on-the-head-of-a-pin arguments are worthless; there is no requirement that the majority opinion be logically tenable, and many (perhaps most) times they are not.

One thing becomes clear: Mr. Roberts enunciates no coherent rule or test in this opinion. Its holding therefore will likely be largely limited to the present case.