'It is not a tax for the purpose of the Anti-Injunction Act, therefore we can hear this case then find that it is indeed a tax allowing congress to penalize you for not engaging in activities it deems you should.'
Wouldn't it be nice if a court could contort terminology into not empowering government just once ... just once.
Maybe rational scrutiny isn't what is called for. If a person wants to do something badly enough, he'll come up with a reason for doing it. John Roberts, apparently, wanted to uphold Obamacare, even if it meant venturing deep into the forbidden land of the sophists.