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.
The court, let alone Roberts, didn't change one word of the law.
Oh, but of course he did. (The other 4 justices who voted for it just don't care.)
The "penalty" is imposed when you file your income taxes. If you have health insurance then you don't pay it.
This is an absolutely backwards interpretation, and contrary to the language of the law. It REQUIRES -- MANDATES -- that you have health insurance. This penalty is more like the fine for a criminal offense than a tax.
you only look at the result you wanted
No, that's what you're doing. I'm simply looking at what the law says.
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.
I wouldn't. You're simply reflexively defending him because he is a Republican appointee, IMO.
The upcoming case deals with a different aspect of the law, but it is like the prior one as there is serious question whether the Court will follow the letter of the law or simply choose to interpret it to fit the outcome they want.
They didn't "uphold the law as written" last time; why would we expect them to do so this time? As I said, Roberts has shown that he has little respect for the written law or the Constitution when it gets in the way of what he wants to do.
The mandate is very clear. it's not a tax incentive; it's a requirement, a mandate, and if you do not comply, you are punished. You can twist that around any way you like, but that's what it is in actuality.