Obama was justified in not classifying a penalty on one's income tax returns as a new tax. Revenue wasn't the object of Obamacare.
Why did you bring up Obama? Last time I checked, Obama was President, not a federal judge.
The federal government defines a tax law's purpose as raising revenue. By the Supreme Court qualifying Obamacare as a tax as justification for it's existence, how can a lower court in full intellectual honesty and keeping with the law they claim to serve, claim that raising revenue was not the purpose of a tax with the definition of a tax is to raise revenue?
If the purpose of the law was not to raise revenue, than the law itself is not a tax and therefor is unconstitutional. If the law is a tax, then it's goal is to raise revenue, and it originated in the wrong house of Congress, meaning it was passed in an unconstitutional manner and must be returned to Congress as a bill and face the rigors of passage again.