ObamaCare was premised on the fact that it was NOT a tax. In fact, the law specifically stated it was not a tax, and all Democrats - including Obama - are on record stating it is NOT a tax.
The court found that it IS a tax, and ruled that ONLY AS A TAX it is legal. But the record shows it is NOT a tax, and therefore is NOT legal. In other words, the court did not rule on the law that was NOT a tax, but a penalty. Instead they ruled on a law that WAS a tax and NOT a penalty. They ruled on a version of the law that does not exist!
Consider: you make a statement that people cannot eat candy BECAUSE it has sugar. Someone contests that and it goes to court. The court finds that you cannot have candy because it has chocolate, not sugar. In this case, the court did NOT say you cannot have candy because of sugar, so THAT law is not valid. But by stating you cannot have candy because of chocolate, the court has written a NEW law, different from the original law. And the separation of powers in the Constitution says that is illeghal - the court cannot make law. Only Congress may make law, and the court REJECTED the law Congress made - that the Affordable Health Care Act cannot be deemed a tax.
I am waiting for a smart AG to understand what really happened here, and contest the court's authority in changing the law, rather than ruling on it. They were not being asked if it was a tax in disguise. They were being asked if it were Constitutional if it WERE NOT a tax. And to that question, the court said "NO".