[Labyrinthos]

Unlikely scenario. The more likely possibility is that Roberts has already promised Kennedy that he gets to write the opinion if he sides in favor of striking the individual mandate. A hint of this appears at page 67:24 - 68:4 of the transcript of the hearing during the morning session on March 28, 2012 concerning severability:

JUSTICE KENNEDY: So do you want us to write an opinion saying we have concluded that there is an insignificant risk of a substantial adverse effect on the insurance companies, that's our economic conclusion, and therefore not severable? That's what you want me to say?

Notice how he starts out talking about “us” writing an opinion, but ends with “me” writing the opinion.

My prediction — and please write this down:

Anti-Injunction Act; 5 to 4 — Obamacare not subject to Anti-Injunction act.

Individual Mandate: 5 to 4 — Unconstitutional

Severability: 6 to 3 — Individual mandate is not severable (Kagan jumps ship and joins the majority)

Medicaid: 7 to 2 — Constitutional, but moot because the entire law will be stricken due to the inability to sever the individual mandate. (Roberts, Scalia, and Kennedy will join the libs, but there will be a number of concur in part, dissent in part opinions.)

[DrDude]

I am not really clear on this. I understood your post and just want to be sure. If the Mandate is ruled Unconstitutional and the ruling that it can’t be severed makes all the rest “MOOT”.

[JediJones]

Individual mandate is not severable (Kagan jumps ship and joins the majority)

Kagan? Really? I believe she was the one in the questioning that brought up the fact she only found one or two small things in the bill that she didn't think were severable from the mandate.