When something looks too good to be true, it’s generally worth checking out further. But if it is, the conclusion the authors draw is stunning. The clear implication is that Roberts initially wanted to do away with the mandate but was reading the tea leaves of public opinion and abandoned his initial, principled stand under outside influence and out of a desire to maintain his reputation and that of the court. That’s a pretty serious charge.Sorry - but this explanation doesn't wash with me. Public opinion has been consistently AGAINST ObamaCare and FOR repeal of it, so why would Roberts fear public opinion?
Also, Roberts' logic is so flawed and so uncharacteristic of his other rulings, it's almost as if he's trying to send a discreet message - like a hostage on the phone trying to give a hint of his whereabouts.
Call me a tin-foiler, but I'm going with the "offer he couldn't refuse" explanation. I certainly wouldn't put it past the thug occupant of the WH.
Forgot to add - I trust a story from CBS about as far as I can throw the author of it. Unnamed sources??? Could be some plant from the White House. What a perfect two-fer. Get your signature legislation approved and get conservatives hating on your nemesis SC justice.
As usual, the libs are feeding us crap and we're gobbling it up and smacking our lips.