EXACTLY WHAT, pray tell, did Breyer and Kagan give in on??? Roberts is an embarrassment to the country. The Justices are there to enforce th Constitution. NOTHING ELSE. I remember that Scalia was appalled at the reversal of Roberts on Obamacare. A sad day for Constitutionalists when Obamacare was allowed to stand. Especially after Kagan herself (and she SHOULD have recused herself, but she is a Lib and they don’t have to follow the Law) had argued (before her elevation to the Supremes) that the ‘fine’ wasn’t a ‘tax’. HOW COULD ROBERTS DECIDE IT WAS A TAX???? (I once argued this with a local morning talk show host. His position was the Justices could ‘interpret’ anything however they want).
How could there ever be ‘negotiations’, when it comes to interpreting the Law?/ It is either in the Constitution or it isn’t!
Maybe the deal was the case involving the constitutionality of the way the interstate commerce clause has been used.
“EXACTLY WHAT, pray tell, did Breyer and Kagan give in on??? “
Probably a few and, but, or, if, the etc changes to the text of the majority opinion.