This guy is another David Souter.
For all the flaws of ObamaCare, at least Roberts has been consistent in his rulings. At the core of these rulings -- where he ended up in the majority in the ObamaCare case and in the minority in the "gay marriage" case -- is an aversion to overturn an existing statute on grounds that are pretty inconsequential. I call them "inconsequential" because the plaintiffs in both of the major cases have barely had any standing to file lawsuits in the first place. Determining whether state or Federal exchanges (or both) were written into ObamaCare is hardly an issue of consequence in the larger scheme of things. In these cases, Roberts has determined that Congress should do its job and fix the stupid law itself. I may not like the end result, but he does have a point there.
The real test for ObamaCare will come when legitimate cases involving personal rights and liberty are brought before the court. I have said from the beginning that the religious liberty cases would be the strongest challenges to ObamaCare, and Roberts' original determination that ObamaCare is somehow a "tax" may actually end up making a very strong case for the plaintiffs in those cases.