I can think of a few reasons why Judge Roberts decided as he did.
First, he said that, it’s not the role of the Supreme Court to protect the people from the consequences of the political decisions which the people make. In that sense, he’s punishing the people for voting in the people who created and voted for Obamacare. (Never mind that, the rest of the people who didn’t vote for the commiecrats, are also being punished). In that sense, Roberts might be thinking the way I feel, which is, that the people won’t learn the tough lessons of socialism, until they find themselves in deep depression and desperation, or like a Greece.
Then, Judge Roberts may be forcing Obama and the democrats to have to defend Obamacare and their tax and spend policies, during this coming election, and if the people are smart and notice the dangers the country is headed towards, then Obama will be voted out, and many other democrats will lose their seats.
Also, keeping Obamacare as an election issue, is one way to help replace Obama, and, Roberts might be feeling confident that, with a republican congress and a “republican” president, that Obamacare will be repealed, and therefore, still meeting the death it well deserved.
So, Roberts might have been planning to kill two birds with one stone, Obama and Obamacare, while teaching the people a well-deserved lesson that stupidity deserves.
Once again, he voted AGAINST Scalia, and voted WITH Kagan. There is no other spin than that.
It is not Robert’s job to teach us a lesson. His job is to interpret the law as it stands and decide if it is constitutional.
The individual mandate was not constitutional and there was no severability clause, so the whole bill should have been thrown out. It is not Robert’s job to change mandate to mean tax just to try and pass the bill.
Roberts gets this one incredibly wrong. One of the principal roles of the Constitution is to protect the rights of the people from laws legislated by lawmakers elected by a small majority of the people.
Under Roberts distorted thinking, legislators could deprive us of our right to free speech and the Court would have no role in protecting us from the political decision.