In reading the dissent one gets the clear impression that Roberts pulled the "tax" angle out of his ass at the last minute and caught everyone off guard, because they had spent almost no time considering the tax angle and all the lower courts had rejected it:
From the dissent:
“Finally, we must observe that rewriting §5000A as a tax in order to sustain its constitutionality would force us to confront a difficult constitutional question: whether this is a direct tax that must be apportioned among the States according to their population. Art. I, §9, cl. 4. Perhaps it is not (we have no need to address the point); but the meaning of the Direct Tax Clause is famously unclear, and its application here is a question of first impression that deserves more thoughtful consideration than the lick-and-a-promise accorded by the Government and its supporters. The Government’s opening brief did not even address the question—perhaps because, until today, no federal court has accepted the implausible argument that §5000A is an exercise of the tax power.”
Exactly. But there is no clear reason as to why he changed his mind. what does O Team have on Roberts????
Not quite true.
Quote from below link: "-- For all the awkward, nervous or frog-in-their-throats public speakers just having a bad day, there's hope. The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the health care law, despite widespread criticism of Solicitor General Donald Verrilli's performance in the courtroom, proves that oral arguments are less about putting on a good show than making viable points and that, more significantly, oral arguments aren't always what seals the deal. Verrilli did, in fact, argue the mandate as a tax, but Roberts's endorsement of this argument reminds us that votes are cast and opinions are written based on much more than courtroom crossfire. Perhaps there's a reason the high court is one of the last venues in American politics still averse to live recordings and modern media technology."
What We Learned: The Tax Argument Cometh