Did Roberts decide to destroy the court in order to save it?

Remember the phrase made famous during the Viet Nam war? “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.” Maybe that’s what’s behind Chief Justice John Roberts’s decision to side with the four Liberals on the Supreme Court on ObamaCare.

It is now becoming abundantly clear that the Roberts switch was a last minute decision. The decision he wrote has been analyzed and its weaknesses exposed for all to see. Its political nature is naked. The Wall Street Journal opined:

His ruling, with its multiple contradictions and inconsistencies, reads if it were written by someone affronted by the government's core constitutional claims but who wanted to uphold the law anyway to avoid political blowback and thus found a pretext for doing so in the taxing power.

If this understanding is correct, then Chief Justice Roberts behaved like a politician, which is more corrosive to the rule of law and the Court's legitimacy than any abuse it would have taken from a ruling that President Obama disliked.

But is John Roberts playing a deeper game than anyone knew? 

 Was his decision to side with the Liberal justices not really a cave-in to the Liberal Left (as many on the Libertarian/Right believe), but a calculated move to further destroy the reputation of the Supreme Court in the eyes of the people, so that in the future the American people would realize that the Supremes are merely unelected politicians in black robes who rule for life?  Roberts didn't get the NY Times approval, and he's managed in infuriate the Right.  Is it all working out according to his nefarious plan?

Tongue firmly planted in cheek.  But ....