Maybe that was Roberts’ intent: to set up the possibility of a second court decision on the constitutionality of the Obamacare tax. Limit the commerce clause in the first go round, then knock down the tax in the second. Seems to me that he should have done both since, as someone pointed out earlier, the kinds of taxes the federal government may impose are spelled out pretty clearly, and taxing non-activity (e.g. not buying health insurance) isn’t one of them.
Well I believe Roberts was doing something far deeper - he was pointing out the mistake everyone was making concerning understanding the laws, and their limitation to corporate capacity. Because as a juge, all he can do is rule on whether the law is "legal" - and Obamacare IS legal, when read strictly as it is written, because it applies ONLY to corporations, NOT non-corporate human beings. But Roberts knows people don't perceive the difference, so he write his ruling in such a way as to draw attention to the difference, to MAKE people chew on that difference, so they can see it doesn't apply to most of them. And even more, for the country to finally wake up to how its legal system really works - and that it is far more restricted than they realize.