That Roberts’ opinion on the Mandate being unconstitutional was not agreed to by the four liberal Justices. In fact, Ginsberg chastized Roberts for mentioning the Mandate at all. Therefore, Roberts’ opinion is really “dicta” and has minimal value as precedent for future cases.

Also, the concept that a “tax” cannot be so high as to “penalize” behavior is not valid under Obamacare. The law that Roberts upheld starts out with a low “tax” for not buying insurance, but has provision for increasing the “tax” in the future to a level higher than the cost of insurance. The Federal “tax” that comes first to mind deals with “machine guns”. The Feds cannot keep you from buying an automatic weapon, but they have imposed license and fee requirements many times greater than the market value of the weapon. This leaves open the idea, proposed by an anti-gun Senator, that handgun ammunition could be “taxed” at 100 times its market value.

I don’t see any Constitutional benefit from this ruling at all. Coming on top of the Arizona ruling, we may come to regard the “Roberts Court” as a reprise of the “Warren Court”.