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.
Bingo Dave!! Roberts eviscerated the “Commerce Clause” excuse for generations to come and set the stage for repeal this “tax” by a simple 51 vote majority in the Senate as was used to pass it to start with! It is now up to us to get those majorities in order to kill the entire issue without future challenges!!
JC
Ginsburg did dissent, in part.