I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest a few things:
1. Chief Justice John Roberts knows full well that Obamacare is unconstitutional.
2. In his legal opinion based on his own well-documented legal philosophy, however, it is NOT unconstitutional on the grounds that were brought before the court in this case.
3. ObamaCare -- or at least major elements of it -- is going to be declared unconstitutional on other legal grounds that are brought before the Supreme Court in separate legal challenges that are filed as various provisions of Obamacare come on line in the future. As other Freepers with legal backgrounds have noted, some of these provisions (the HHS waiver process, for example) are "arbitrary and capricious" by definition and cannot stand up to legal scrutiny. Others have noted that anyone who buys an insurance policy under the threat of a government-imposed financial penalty is basically signing a contract under duress, which voids the contract by any legal measure. Additional challenges are already underway or will be filed in the future based on the constitutionality of ObamaCare under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
4. One kicker for Item #3 is that ObamaCare is so badly flawed that some of these provisions may not even be implemented as originally scheduled (the individual mandate in 2014, for example).
How does the equal protection issue reconcile with all the waivers and bribes in Obamacare?