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.
The court, let alone Roberts, didn't change one word of the law. The "penalty" is imposed when you file your income taxes. If you have health insurance then you don't pay it. Claiming that somehow isn't a tax is just wordplay with no substance.
"He rewrote the law before and he likely will have no compunctions about rewriting it again."
He didn't rewrite anything. That's silly. The court didn't change the text of the law.
"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."
In your imagination, because you only look at the result you wanted and see he didn't give that. He made a reasoned decision that is difficult to fault, except that it leads to a result we don't like. But the court decides the issues that are presented to them. The upcoming case is completely different. This time I expect he will again uphold the law as written, and it will have very different consequences.