Sorry. Wasn't ignoring you - I do have a life other than Free Republic...
There are several pages in the decision where Justice Roberts discusses the individual mandate and how the Congress does not have the power to regulate non-activity. Within those arguments are footnotes of Justice Ginsberg's dissent such as this little nugget: 4 JUSTICE GINSBURG suggests that “at the time the Constitution was framed, to ‘regulate’ meant, among other things, to require action.” Post, at 23 (citing Seven-Sky v. Holder, 661 F. 3d 1, 16 (CADC 2011); brackets and some internal quotation marks omitted). But to reach this conclusion, the case cited by JUSTICE GINSBURG relied on a dictionary in which “[t]o order; to command” was the fifth-alternative definition of “to direct,” which was itself the second-alternative definition of “to regulate.” See Seven-Sky, supra, at 16 (citing S. Johnson, Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed. 1773) (reprinted 1978)). It is unlikely that the Framers had such an obscure meaning in mind whenthey used the word “regulate.” Far more commonly, “[t]o regulate”meant “[t]o adjust by rule or method,” which presupposes something to adjust. 2 Johnson, supra, at 1619; see also Gibbons, 9 Wheat., at 196 (defining the commerce power as the power “to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed”).
And this: 6In an attempt to recast the individual mandate as a regulation of commercial activity, JUSTICE GINSBURG suggests that “[a]n individualwho opts not to purchase insurance from a private insurer can be seen as actively selecting another form of insurance: self-insurance.” Post, at 26. But “self-insurance” is, in this context, nothing more than a description of the failure to purchase insurance. Individuals are no more “activ[e] in the self-insurance market” when they fail to purchase insurance, ibid., than they are active in the “rest” market when doing nothing.
Justice Roberts clearly takes issue with her arguments. Ginsberg is desperate to justify the individual mandate and Roberts is not having it.
It may be semantics, but Roberts gets around his distaste for the individual mandate by referring to it as a tax, and it's clear in his writing that he believes Congress does not have the power to force activity.
Unfortunately, it makes no difference what he chooses to call it regarding it's effect on us. The way I read it, the Affordable Health Care Act was deemed Constitutional by calling the funding mechanism a tax, not by declaring the individual mandate Constitutional.
How fortunate for you. So even if "the way you read it" isn't "the way it's supposed to be read" then you're always going to be right, aren't you.