Accordingly, in my view, it is not unreasonable to continue with not only criticisms of any of the Justice's opinions, but also, to assure that they recognize the environment in which statutory interpretations and constitutional matters are decided.  As you note, Chief Justice Roberts will likely be around for a good while.

And, I believe, in Robert's case, that environment may be registering.  He joined Gorsuch, writing for the majority's holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protected sexual orientation and gender identity.

However, in Windsor (DOMA unconstitutional) Roberts dissented, as he did in Obergefel (same sex marriage).  Indeed, Obergefel, for the first time since joining the Court, Roberts read his dissent for emphasis.

While I never expect Roberts to become a Harry Blackmun or David Souter, he may, as Chief Justice (unlike the hopeless Thomas and Alito) consider cases before him as if they are being decided in the 21st Century, albeit in baby steps or faced with unlawful or glaringly apparent corner-cutting, dishonesty and capriciousness, as evident in DACA.  

In ACA, Roberts did save the day, but he did try to find an ersatz middle way by disallowing requirements for states to expand Medicaid.