Just adding a small comment to the millions of comments this ruling will get in the next few days (and years):
Legal experts prior to the ruling had largely expected that the ACA was constitutional, but that the Supreme Court would hold otherwise. This meant that the consensus was that the highest court in the land could be expected to act in a partisan fashion and give the result their best attempt at post-hoc rationalization. I found that rather sad.
That this has not happened is a point of evidence in favor of the Court's ability to rule on the merits of an argument, as interpreted through a legitimate understanding of the law. If that understanding is not one that liberals frequently agree with, nevertheless it is precisely the situation the Constitution's framers intended: a stable body marked by long-lived Presidential influence only rarely altered by political events.
If that makes the next Presidential election more important, this is proper.