Benedict Robbers.

Justice Scalia schools Chief Justice John "we hardly knew ye..." Roberts on why what he did in this opion was simply so wrong.  You want to play politics, Mr. Roberts?  Run for office yourself.

For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling.  Taxes have never been popular, see, e.g., Stamp Act of 765, and in part for that reason, the Constitution  requires tax increases to originate in the House of Representatives.  See Art. I, §7, cl. 1. That is to say, they must originate in the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at their next election, which is never more than two years off. The Federalist No. 58 “defend[ed] the decision to give the origination power to the House on the ground that the Chamber that is more accountable to the people should have the primary role in raising revenue.” United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U. S. 385, 395 (1990). We have no  doubt that Congress knew precisely what it was doing when it rejected an earlier version of this legislation that imposed a tax instead of a requirement-with-penalty. See Affordable Health Care for America Act, H. R. 3962, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., §501 (2009); America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009, S. 1796, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., §1301. Imposing a tax through judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry.  (pp. 24-25, emphasis added)

Besides, if Obama told us again and again and again that the "mandate" to purchase insurance was NOT a tax, then how could anybody take him at his word now when he tells us this whole reform/overthrow will NOT cost the country money, and will NOT affect your very own personal insurance plan?

It's sick enough the game-playing politicians.  Now we've got a Chief Justice at the helm who decides he'd be more popular sitting in the ladies section, like one of the View group, and decides to rewrite the legislation to characterise it as  tax, just so he can blow in and save the day...

Go home, John.
Let this one eat at your heart and soul, and understand:  this was the hill to fight and die on.  You blew it in trying to split the baby, and down deep, despite all the accolades about losing the battle but winning the war, and the lib pundits saying:  "Gee, he's not such a straight-shooter legally after all.  I kinda like the guy... how he can be influenced so easily like that..." you threw away a scholarly reputation for a little political popularity and love.

That's like guaranteeing free contraception to some,
and passing the bill onto others who have no need for it, nor any desire to purchase it.

Congrats, man.  Betcha Scalia doesn't let you live this one down...
Plus, I'm thinking:  that predicted long career ahead on the Court?  Not so promising now... you know, when you do wrong, and you know it, and it tends to eat away -- after the fanboys need you not and move on -- at your heart and soul, well ... they say that can have negative health impacts.

Good luck to you, though.
So sorry you sold out your principles though.   Enjoy the rest of the term, just don't expect anybody much to take your opinions seriously anymore.  We'll look to the non-popular thinkers on the Court for legal guidance;  you get yourself booked on the View asap, and strike while the iron's hot...