To be honest, I'm conflicted on this. While I can't imagine that the law is constitutional, what Justice Roberts said, in effect, was, "We're not your bitches. We're not going to get into a political shit pile just to bail your sorry asses out. Congress: you broke it, you fix it". I can see it as the supremes punting. This is a similar approach to what blog brother Borepatch says. The supremes reduced it to a tax, "Own it, Nancy".
On the other hand, to have the famous "swing vote" justice, Kennedy, go hard line constitutionalist and say, "this whole thing is a fetid, stinking piece of unconstitutional crap" and later in his writing, "it's a steaming pile of Justice Roberts" tells you that not everyone thinks that refusing to deal with it was a wise choice. (I admit I made up much of Kennedy's writing, but not his tone. DOJ - this is called "satire". Look it up.)
Being serious for a while, what I think really happened is that the Supremes pushed our existing cold civil war, or open source/underground civil war, which ever you call it, a little closer to going hot.
I worked with a guy several years ago who said, "America's next civil war will be between the 'haves' and the 'have nots', when they are led to believe they have a right to everything the 'haves' worked all their lives for".Maybe a better way to say that is "between the makers and the takers".
Remember the old saw about the four boxes of freedom: soap box, ballot box, jury box, cartridge box? It is - remotely - possible we can fix this with the ballot box, if enough people get out to (1) give mittens a mandate beyond the few hundred votes that fraud can give in a given state and (2) the same wave sweeps the Senate and the House. Because all the stupid party knows or cares about is their power, we really need another one: (3) we whip them all like rented mules until they restore some sense. It's also possible today's ruling guaranteed getting numbers 1 and 2. If the people really are 60-40 against Obamacare, those 60% would probably walk through fire to vote him out.
From what I read on other blogs and in comments, a lot of people are ready to go for the last option.
For those new around here, I've not sworn loyal to any party, but as fiscal deficit hawk, a small "L" libertarian and conservative I don't have much in common with today's left. The two parties are two faces of the same ruling class. They both are continually aggregating power, they both are prone to cronyism with their favored donors, they both are the problem.