Sorry, but no apology is, well, no apology. Despite the fact that Bill O'Reilly said specifically he would apologize for being an idiot if the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, he straight-up said he wasn't sorry and then made a pathetic excuse about how he had no idea the Roberts Court would uphold it under the taxing power.

That's a bullsh*t excuse and O'Reilly proved himself the idiot that he is. Because you see, ahead of the oral arguments, both sides file this thing called briefs. And those briefs are thorough. In fact, common wisdom says that briefs are given far more weight in the Justices' decision than oral argument. Oral argument simply offers the opportunity for justices to ask questions or clarify points they haven't quite pulled out of the brief.

Here's the thing. Those briefs were filed in this case long before the oral arguments and you know what else? They've been posted online for anyone -- even a production assistant for a jerk like Bill O'Reilly -- to read ahead of time.

Guess what is in the government briefs (PDF)? Pages and pages and pages of arguments for why the Affordable Care Act individual mandate is constitutional not only under the commerce clause, but also under the taxing power. Here are some key sections for BillO's reference. I refuse to read them to him because there are just some things one should have to do themselves:

• The minimum coverage provision is independently authorized by Congress’s taxing power
• The minimum coverage provision operates as a tax law
• The validity of an assessment under the taxing power does not depend on whether it is denominated a tax
• The placement of the predicate for imposition of the tax penalty in a separate subsection does not take the minimum coverage provision outside Congress’s taxing power

If BillO was truly shocked, and I doubt he was, perhaps he should pull his head out of his butt and actually pay attention to how these things work.

There should be some kind of penalty for broadcast idiocy, because if even one single person on this poor excuse for a broadcast had actually bothered to pay attention, they'd know this wasn't some kind of huge conspiracy to undermine the conservative movement. It is far more likely that Chief Justice Roberts simply agreed with the arguments as made in the filed briefs by Solicitor General Verrilli.

So no, I don't accept your half-assed pathetic excuse of an apology, Bill. Nor should anyone.