Roberts decided that a tax collected along with other taxes, but that is waived if you have health insurance, should be considered a tax. Since there are many other taxes and exemptions handled exactly the same way it's hard to see how he was twisting anything.
When this new case comes up it's an entirely different question and the twisting has to be done in order to uphold Obamacare. I expect Roberts to strike with a majority of the court agreeing.
Roberts rewrote the law to make a penalty (something imposed for conduct) into a tax, so as to uphold it. But a penalty is not a tax, even if the Supreme Court says it is.
He rewrote the law before and he likely will have no compunctions about rewriting it again. He’s shown that he has little respect for teh written law or the Constitution when it gets in the way of what he wants to do.
Just like most of the other justices.
Suppose the government made a law requiring everyone to buy broccoli or the IRS would collect a penalty from them. Would that be a constitutional, legitimate use of the “taxing power”? I don’t think there is a serious person who would say so. Yet that is exactly what Roberts held.