I agree with you that Roberts should be praised for his prudence and pragmatism; he held true to his belief that the Justices are umpires. However, there's a hu

I agree with you that Roberts should be praised for his prudence and pragmatism; he held true to his belief that the Justices are umpires. However, there's a huge inconsistency in this ruling: The Anti-Injunction Act says that you can't file a lawsuit challenging a tax until after that tax is paid. Congress argued that they intend to enforce the mandate by attaching a "penalty," rather than a "tax," and as such, the Anti-Injunction Act doesn't apply. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court upheld the health care act as a tax for purposes of its constitutionality, but not for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. Were this construed as a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, then the Supreme Court wouldn't have been able to rule on the issue of the mandate's constitutionality.