Roberts' legal reasoning actually has some appeal to me, even if not to most (focus on the economic functionality rather than the package labeling), but the ever fascinating Sean Trende has his own take on the matter: he thinks Roberts may have done a John Marshall, and found a way to give the opposition a "win," while screwing them in the long run, just like Marshall did when he aced Jefferson out by declaring Judicial Supremacy, while giving Jefferson nothing tangible to oppose. Here the the Marshall equivalent of giving the opposition a gift in the nature of a Trojan Horse are a leash on the commerce clause, and on the Feds ability to manipulate the states with golden handcuffs. I have no idea if that was Roberts' game beyond just pure legal reasoning, but as to the effect of his decision, the Trende point of view I think has considerable merit.
Another gift may be a political one to the Pubs. They still have the mandate to kick around, and now can call it a tax to turbocharge their weapon.
This is exactly the point I have made to conservative groups the last few days. The ruling is a huge victory for states rights, even though individual rights seem to take it in the chin. A 7-2 ruling clearly limiting Congress' hold over the states is awfully big in my book. It's hard for those who were so locked in to overturning the mandate to see the real win here. Roberts was planning to play for a full game, not just the first quarter.
Sean Trend's latest article emphasizes your point. In the end, the only thing that happened was that Fed power was truncated, and nothing expanded.
I particularly like the final quote in Trende's article:
It seems to me this was exactly Roberts' charge at the end of his opinion.
