It’s a Tax / It’s Not a Tax: ObamaCare Explained

Matthew Franck has defended Chief Justice Roberts' opinion thusly:

I am more convinced than ever that Roberts has a fully plausible case that can be defended on principled grounds. That is not the same as an endorsement of its merits. … But I do think that people might, just might, give him some credit for doing his duty to the rule of law as he understands it.

Moreover, Mr. Franck says:

Every real difference between Roberts and the four joint dissenters comes down to … this. Which is the most compelling reading of the mandate — the most natural reading … or the most favorable reading of its language …?

The joint dissenters chose the first option, of the most natural reading. Roberts chose the second option, of the most favorable reading. This, for reasons he gives at length, strikes him as the soundest way to proceed, consistent with the judicial duty never to hold an act of Congress unconstitutional that need not be held unconstitutional if it can be saved on any plausible reading. [Emphasis in original.]