Obviously the conservative movement, led off the cliff as always by the tea party, have predictably responded to Roberts blasphemy with violent rage. I suppose they could be in on the gag, though more likely they just didn't get the memo and their limited intellect views Roberts as nothing but a betrayer who must be destroyed.
Below I will outline my reasons for thinking Roberts "crazy like a fox", and my fears about the implications/results of this vote. Feel free to disagree with me but do me the favor of actually listing your disagreements and don't simply post "you're wrong".
1) Obviously, Roberts is the Captain of the most partisan court in modern memory. This is the Court that gave us Citizens United and Citizens United 2 Montana Boogaloo. This is the Court that upheld the most heinous provision of the Arizona Immigration law (show me your papers). Roberts didn't just wake up one day and start caring about poor, uninsured people. He certainly didn't learn to love taxes. This makes me think there's more behind his vote than meets the eye.
2) Many people have said, and I for the most part agree, that Roberts was concerned with the reputation of the Court. However, what does that really mean? If he was really concerned with the legitimacy of the Court in the eyes of the public, there are many other decisions that he could have targeted (Citizens United, or at least the do-over of Citizens United in Montana, for example).
It worries me that he is going to use this one "liberal" decision to excuse dozens of partisan, conservative decisions that will change the course of government for the worse in our country. This one liberal decision could doom such important cases as Prop 8, the Voting Rights Act and Affirmative Action not to mention future attempts to help the poor and tackle global warming. This one decision, sweet as it is, could haunt liberals in this country for years to come (especially if Romney wins *shudder* and creates a 6-3 conservative super majority on the Court).
3) Pay close attention to exactly how he "upheld" Obamacare. He didn't completely buy the Obama Administration word on the case and changed the justification from one involving the Commerce Clause to one deeming the Individual Mandate a "tax". This could be a very important distinction. Most obvious is the fact that this hands Roberts' masters in the GOP an easy attack against Obama (OMG, he's raising your taxes). This could very well be one of the reasons behind an eventual Romney victory (very hard to type that).
Less obvious but equally troubling, this distinction diminishes the Government's powers under the Commerce Clause and could quite possibly doom future efforts by Progressive Administrations to help the poor and address future crises.
As I said, feel free to disagree with me, try to talk me down if you wish, but don't resort to insults or simply say "you're wrong", I want to know why I'm wrong.