It doesn't matter how many times you falsely claim that the commentary of Samuel Roberts represented the views of the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania.
It is clear from Roberts' own writing, in which he "presumed" [his own word] to know what the members of that Court would think, from the fact that Roberts actually CRITICIZES the Supreme Court's approach to the issue, and from the fact that Roberts makes no mention whatsoever of the Supreme Court having at any time or in any way sponsored, approved or even READ Roberts' book, that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania had NOTHING AT ALL to do with Roberts' book.
Continuing to repeat the false claim that they did doesn't make it the slightest bit true. Neither does continuing to repeat the false claim that I'm a "liar."
On the other hand, of course, when Bayard states explicitly that Chief Justice Marshall READ HIS BOOK, and that he sent him a letter pointing out one minor error and saying that was the ONLY thing he could find wrong with Bayard's exposition of the Constitution... well, THAT can be completely ignored!
I have said it before, and I will say it again. You are in need of some kind of psychological help.
It is referenced no where in the Report of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
The book was used by Pennsylvania courts for many decades, and if you think there is the slightest chance that it did not reflect the law as understood by and as based on the Judges of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania then you are a deluded loon.
But then none of us will be surprised at that.