That is what Roberts said in the opinion. The SCOTUS' opinion is on whether obamacare is constitutional or not, not on whether it is good politics, for that is entrusted to the Congress. The law was expected to pass all along anyway. You'd think with all the lawmakers in the Congress, the constitutionality issue has been debated over and over again.
No matter what I think, Roberts is right from legal point of view. SCOTUS has responsibility to uphold a law. SCOTUS is the check and balance, not supposed to be a brick wall. The law is unconstitutional under commerce clause since commerce clause only gave the government power to regular commerce, not to compel commerce, based on what Roberts said. However, SCOTUS could find it is contitutional under another rather broad clause, the taxing and spending clause. That is why Roberts found the law is constitutional based on Congress' taxing power.
Both Roberts and Romney said the law are constitutional. They did not mean it is a good policy. For one, how could IRS find out who have health care who do not, thus collect tax from those who do not? After all, how many people chose not to pay income tax? Second, the "tax" is merely 1% of gross income. If an average income eaner earns $80000 a year. Not buying insurance means he would have to pay $800 a year in "tax." Buying insurance, on the other hand, would cost him more than $800 a month, if not sponsored by an employer. Third, what I disagree with Roberts is that taxing power is also a way to regulate commerce. While the law is murky, this ruling would set a bad precedent to expand the taxing power. Now Congress can force people to buy broccoli or pay a tax (Scalia's words), or force people to buy Mac instead of a PC or pay a tax. If healthcare is also a product in the interstate commerce, why should it be different than broccoli or a Mac? That really does not make any sense to me. Next, Justice Kennedy in his dissent said government in its oral argument presented numerous evidence that this is not a tax but a penalty thus it violated the Constitution. I did not follow the oral argument except that Obama himself in 2009 said it was not a tax. However, I do agree with Roberts on this point that label does not control and SCOTUS should find a way to uphold the law. Finally, the implementation of this law would result in payroll tax increase, health care cost increase, which is bad for the economy. The stock market has said its opinion loud and clear today.
