Also according to the court:
Black people are property and ineligible to use the court system. (Scott v. Sanford)
Using the same model of government as the federal government at the state level (something that is mentioned explicitly in the constitution) is unconstitutional. (Reynolds v. Sims)
Contraception (Griswold v. CT), abortion (Roe v. Wade) and sodomy (Lawrence v. Texas) are constitutionally protected rights. (Note: none are mentioned or even alluded to in the constitution.)
Obamacare was wholly legal as a tax, even though everyone involved denied it was a tax. (NFIB v. Sibelius)
The Court, throughout its history, has had a serious problem with reality.
The examples you cite do not stand for the proposition you claim they do. Flat out. The Supreme Court has decided tens of thousands of cases since it was created; 6 cherry-picked cases out of that long history is statistically irrelevant. If anything, that you can find only 6 that are that objectionable merely proves that the Court is very in touch with reality because, statistically speaking, it's always been correct.
Further, your characterizations are incorrect. Reynolds v. Sims had to do with the apportionment of a state into different voting districts, and held that those voting districts could not be so malapportioned as to call into question the premises underlying republican government. The dissent in that case is where the real error lies for the simple reason that the Founders (a) did provide for a rough equality between states for representatives in the House, and specifically chose to have representation in the Senate without regard to population because of the different role the Senate was to play vis-a-vis the House. Accordingly, since the Constitution was expressly drafted with that goal in mind, it flies in the face of basic rational thought to conclude that the Constitution itself was unconstitutional under the rationale of Reynolds v. Sims. In short, the federal system of government was intended to be different from that of the states, and the equal protection clause applies to the states in ways that it does not apply to the federal government, if for no other reason than that the differences highlighted in Reynolds v. Sims were drafted at the same time.
Griswold, Roe, and Lawrence are arguable either way; the mere fact that certain folks don't like them does not, ipso facto, make them wrong. Further, given the wailing and gnashing of teeth over things like striking down DOMA in certain quarters, it's rather hypocritical for those same quarters to object to similar cases holding that the government's reach into private affairs has limits.
The decision in NFIB v. Sibelius is wholly defensible - to say otherwise is to elevate rhetoric and labels over substance - and, something I think gets none of the appreciation it should, had the decision gone otherwise, the simple fix would have been to amend Obamacare to state that it was a tax. At that point the game would have been over. The argument that the individual mandate itself forces people to engage in commerce is specious for the simple reason that the individual mandate, by itself, was not sufficiently penal to constitute sufficient coercion.
In fact, similar examples abound in just the tax code alone. How so? Because there is a plethora of provisions in which taxpayers get a certain tax benefit for engaging in certain types of commercial transactions; those provisions effectively impose a "mandate" on taxpayers to engage in those transactions because if they don't they face a higher tax bill than they would otherwise face. For example, if you don't buy a "green" car you don't get a whopping big tax credit for it - that's a mandate to buy "green" cars. If you purchase tuition at a "qualified" educational institution you get a tax deduction that reduces your taxes; that's a mandate to pay tuition at those schools because if you don't, you pay higher taxes.
In point of fact, there was always a "mandate" to purchase insurance in the tax code - through your employer - if the employer purchased a qualified group plan, and paid the premiums, the employer got a deduction for the premiums paid, but the employees had no offsetting income as a result of those premiums being paid on their behalf. That is a huge mandate to get insurance through your employer and those who do not or cannot end up facing a higher tax bill because they didn't do so.
The list is simply endless and the bottom line is this: if the Court had held that the individual mandate was not a tax, and therefore was an impermissible forcing of commercial transactions, then so, too, would half the tax code be unconstitutional. There are certain people here who might like the idea, but fortunately they're out of luck.