I don’t know about that. The exact reasoning for the court’s upholding for the law, as I understand the composition of the ruling, was that it was a tax.
Yes, I heard the caller on RL talk about how it was non-binding...but I’ve also been around long enough to know that the texts of decisions are used as precedents. You can bet the “tax” argument, citing this decisioni, will be around for a long time.
On the Commerce Clause, this was not Cardozo speaking for the majority or a minority of four. It was Roberts speaking solely for himself, his own flight of fancy. He was not joined in his opinion on the Commerce Clause by any other Justice. As for treating the mandate as a tax; yes it is a precedent, and a harmful one.