The fact is that Roberts was not legislating from the bench. Obamacare was legally passed by Congress. It should not have come down to whether it is a tax or not. You are not good at all.
The Obama Lawyers argued that it was a punitive fine for those who refused to buy Obamacare, which was Un-Constitutional. It was the USSC's job to take thr argument presented by the WH lawyers and rule on it AS IS.
INSTEAD, Roberts HIMSELF - as a USSC Justice - over-stepped his authority to CHANGE the argument of the WH Lawyers by declaring if it was a TAX it would be legal. Changing the argument of a lawyer appearing before the USSC to be heard by the USSC was / is NOT the job of the Justices, but - again - that is what Roberts did. Kennedy said as much in his comments .
Once it was decided it was a TAX, the hearing should have immediately been halted, as precedence had established that a USSC hearing could NOT be held on the Constitutionality of a tax UNTIL AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT THAT TAX HAD BEEN MADE.
Once again, as Kennedy pointed out, Roberts ignored precedence to go ahead with the hearing and issue the ruling it was ok.
WHY did Roberts 'save' Obamacare by changing the Obama/WH Lawyers' argument/case and by going ahead with a ruling - especially when Roberts and the Justices had demonstrated earlier (by refusing to stand when Obama entered chambers in Congress to give a speech during a time when Obama was 'attacking' the USSC) that they would not be intimidated or bullied?
Some believe he was blackmailed by the Obama administration. He and his wife were attempting to adopt a foreign girl, and it had been reported that her paperwork had been delayed due to bureaucratic issues. Funny, not long after his ruling the paperwork problem with the adoption cleared up, and they were able to adopt the little girl. I am sure that was just a coincidence, though...