What Happens To American Freedom If The Chief Justice Of The Supreme Court Makes The Wrong Call?

This post is a follow up to yesterday's post entitled "How Much Does A Supreme Court Ruling Impact My Freedom?"

         No one knows why Chief Justice John Roberts switched his vote other than the legal rationale he gave in the Court's majority "opinion." Yes, I know, their rulings are always called opinions. This is not the same thing as Jason Aldous expressing his opinion for what it's worth. When the Supreme Court issues an opinion, big things happen. Laws either have to be changed or they are given extra staying power however the Court rules.
      
         But why did he do it? Everyone - conservatives, liberals, and everyone in between, were expecting Justice Kennedy to be the one to swing the balance one way or the other in this case. The reliably conservative John Roberts was not even suspected of supporting the administration's case. And why should he have been suspected of it? None of the law-makers who voted to confirm his 2005 appointment to the Court had any doubt of his conservative leanings based on his prior record.

         Commentators running the gamut from Charles Krauthammer to Bob Beckel assume that Roberts had considerations other than the constitutionality of the Obamacare law when he made his ruling. Of course, this is speculation, Roberts himself has not confirmed this. But everyone seems at a loss to come up with an explanation that makes sense.

         And why does his own legal opinion not make sense? Because if the Obamacare law is constitutional based only on Congress' right to tax, ANY LAW THEY MAKE THAT INCLUDES A TAX LEVY WILL BE CONSTITUTIONAL. They could make a law requiring us all to wear blue shirts on Tuesday's or face a tax penalty and, according to Roberts' constitutional logic, this would be permissible under the U.S. Constitution. Let's consider the possibly that Roberts made the wrong call in this case. Has American freedom been helped or hurt by it?

        If the constitutionality of the Obamacare law was not Roberts' main consideration, what was? All the politicos I've seen on the news channels say that he was concerned about the prestige of the Supreme Court if it were to rule against a major piece of legislation passed by the Congress and signed by the President of the United States. These pundits say that he was afraid of another controversial decision like the one the Court made in Bush v. Gore. If so, than this rationale flies in the face of what Roberts swore when he took his oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

       Now, I'm not an expert on constitutional law, but I've always been under the understanding that a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court is supposed to begin and end his or her rationale for ruling on a law  - with the U.S. Constitution. If the chief justice or any of the other associate justices did exactly that, would not the prestige of the Court take care of itself?