[P-Marlowe]

John Robert’s changed his vote at the last minute under duress.

You don't write a 90 page opinion "at the last minute."

The reason he changed his vote at the 11th hour was a form of soft extortion.

IF true then Roberts has no business being a judge, much less the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS.

If true, then Roberts should be impeached.

Are you carrying water for him? If so, I think he just drowned in it.

[dfwgator]

The term “Occam’s Razor” definitely comes to mind here.

[null and void]

Are you carrying water for him?

I think I know little jeremiah well enough to know that it's not a case of carrying water, it's a case of trying to make some sense out of something that makes no sense.

[NVDave]

There’s a bunch of things that don’t quite add up. I’m not ready to hop on the conspiracy bandwagon here, but there’s several things that are very odd about the whole Charlie-Foxtrot:

1. Ginsburg’s opinion really took hammer and tongs to Roberts on the commerce clause issue... in somewhat strident language for a SCOTUS justice.

I would have expected her to pull these punches since she was getting what she ultimately wanted - the ACA to stand and the mandate to stand.

2. The dissent by Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Kennedy refers to Ginsburg’s opinion as the “dissent” - meaning their position was the majority opinion at one time.

3. The dissent by Thomas, Scalia, et al has what appears to be a tacked-on response to the taxing issue - at the end.

4. There’s much duplication by Scalia and Roberts on the issue of the Commerce Clause and Medicare, but Scalia’s discussion of these issues never mentions Roberts’. It never appears to say that it “agree with” or mention Roberts’ opinion.

The whole mess, taken together, gives an impression that Roberts wrote his opinion without either the liberal wing or conservative wing of the SCOTUS really knowing what he was writing. It didn’t need to be written at the last minute from what I see, but it did need to be written without collaboration with either set of justices.

[boatbums]

Not only that, but IF Ginsberg retires before Obama’s narrow A$$ is kicked out of the White House in January, he will name another liberal to replace the liberal ALREADY there - Ginsberg. The makeup of the court doesn't change. Now, when Scalia or Kennedy decides to retire and they are both getting up there (Scalia is 76 and Kennedy is nearly 76), then the next president will be the one to tip the balance one way or the other.

The REAL travesty in this ruling was the refusal of Kagan to recuse herself due to her personal and extensive involvement on this very law. As chief justice, Roberts should have made some effort to convince her of that.