In response to:

Oh My: Did Roberts Switch Sides at the Last Minute?

Al341 Wrote: Jun 28, 2012 3:27 PM
Hey A-hole, I have read most of TR's 20+ volumes, I happen to be a historian. Have you? TR said this in 1898, he turned "progressive" in 1912, in any event that is irrelevant to the quote. Now go back and read some history. (PS if you think that TR would back the 'progressives' of today, you don't know him very well. After his presidency, in response to anarcho-leftist protest in NYC, he commented that if he had a handful of his Rough Riders with rifles, he could end these protests in no time.) And since when do conservative posters on this site cite the Huffington Post as an authority. Time to go back to school for remedial history, young man.

If these early strands of legal detective work are correct, the revelation they've uncovered pours mounds of salt into the wound:
 

Scalia’s dissent, at least on first quick perusal, reads like it was originally written as a majority opinion http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2012/06/evidence-that-the-votes-shifted-after-conference-initial-vote-to-declare-mandate-unconstitutional.html (in particular, he consistently refers to Justice Ginsburg’s opinion as “The Dissent”). Back in May, there were rumors floating around relevant legal circles that a key vote was taking place, and that Roberts was feeling tremendous pressure from unidentified circles to vote to uphold the...