[apillar]

From the opinion authorship, health care is almost certainly being written by CJ Roberts, perhaps in part with Justice Kennedy. That’s a good sign...

Maybe, maybe not. Roberts sided with the libs to strike down the AZ law and that was with the Kagan recusal.

Actually it's my understanding that CJ Roberts joining the majority on Arizona was more tactical than a reflection of his actual views. If he would have joined Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. The court would have split 4-4 (Kagan recused) and the 9th circuit ruling striking down ALL of the Arizona law would have stood. So in joining with the majority he got Arizona 1/4 of a loaf, which I suppose is better than nothing.

[CedarDave]

Actually it's my understanding that CJ Roberts joining the majority on Arizona was more tactical than a reflection of his actual views. If he would have joined Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. The court would have split 4-4 (Kagan recused) and the 9th circuit ruling striking down ALL of the Arizona law would have stood. So in joining with the majority he got Arizona 1/4 of a loaf, which I suppose is better than nothing.

Interesting viewpoint. I suppose we will have to wait until he writes his memoirs to find out for sure.

[Servant of the Cross]

Actually it's my understanding that CJ Roberts joining the majority on Arizona was more tactical than a reflection of his actual views. If he would have joined Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. The court would have split 4-4 (Kagan recused) and the 9th circuit ruling striking down ALL of the Arizona law would have stood. So in joining with the majority he got Arizona 1/4 of a loaf, which I suppose is better than nothing.

What you said! This makes the most sense of any analysis on this that I've read yet.

[AuH2ORepublican]

“So in joining with the majority he got Arizona 1/4 of a loaf, which I suppose is better than nothing.”

---

I wouldn’t go that far. Had Roberts voted with the conservatives to allow the entire AZ law to stand, there would indeed have been a 4-4 split on striking down 3 of the law’s sections, so the 9th Circuit’s upholding of such sections would have stood. However, a Kennedy 4-vote plurality opinion (sans Roberts) would have gotten 8 votes for upholding the section of the law that permits cops to inquire as to the immigration status of persons they arrest, so the 9th Circuit would have been overturned on that aspect of its opinion. Thus, the result would have been exactly the same irrespective of how Roberts would have voted.

That being said, as I indicated in my post #323, there might be other tactical reasons for Roberts to have voted with Kennedy, and I think that it portends well for a favorable disposition of the Obamacare case.