Yawn... Another 'intellectual' with patronizing analyses. Confucius, he say: "Self-proclaimed intellectualizing preachers."

Roberts could have stopped with solid majority vote (except for Ginsburg per minority's report) that the Commerce clause can't be stretched to apply a mandate. But he chose to go further and rationalized the mandate based on the constitutionality of using Congress' power to tax albeit as a penalty which is a new twist. Did Roberts "need" to make this argument for the President when the President and his majority in Congress vehemently denied that this was not a tax to the public during deliberations and voting on the bill only to then argue in court that yes it was a tax? Of course not! But we can only speculate that Roberts "chose" to "craft" the Administration's position perhaps for a larger public good: to mitigate the further ideological partisan politicization of the court; real or perceived. And in doing so, as a conservative, he also masterfully returned the debate back to its political arena where it must rest. This perhaps is the greatest achievement of his crafted opinion.