The logic in the majority opinion is the jurisprudential equivalent of passing a camel through the eye of a needle. The logic is so tortured, unexpected and unprecedented that even the law's most fervent supporters did not make or anticipate the court's argument in its support. Under the Constitution, a tax must originate in the House (which this law did not), and it must be applied for doing something (like earning income or purchasing tobacco or fuel), not for doing nothing. In all the history of the court, it never has held that a penalty imposed for violating a federal law was really a tax. And it never has converted linguistically the congressional finding of penalty into the judicial declaration of tax, absent finding subterfuge on the part of congressional draftsmanship.
So, the USSC effectively argued that ObamaCare was constitutional because it was a tax. However, the bill did not originate in the house, which makes the bill unconstitutional on procedural grounds. Thus, if the USSC truly believes that ObamaCare is a tax, they will have to declare it unconstitutional because it wasn’t enacted correctly.
Basically, ObamaCare is unconstitutional pretty much any way you want to slice it. That it hasn’t been overturned in any meaningful way should simply indicate that rule of law is still pretty much dead, and that America is now governed by the whims of nine oligarchs in robes.