If I'm not mistaken, I believe today's session was based on the premise, "so, if we do find the mandate Unconstitutional, what does that do to the rest of the law?"
That is, all of the questions implied the overturn of the mandate because that was the nature of the premise they were examining. It doesn't mean that anyone has actually committed to making that finding in the first place.
Personally, I think we’re screwed. I’ll be happy to be surprised, but I don’t expect to be.
I think the use of the word “salvage” was perhaps, unintentionally revealing of the Justice’s belief that a majority may well exist to invalidate the mandate. I may be wrong, but of course we are all straining to simply read the tea leaves as they fall...