In response to:

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

MadisonLives Wrote: Jun 29, 2012 8:23 AM
The court has a history of saying "Hey voters -- you asked for this, you fix it." This opinion is simply the court's way of saying "If you don't like taxes, don't vote for politicians who raise your taxes." Roberts drew a very clear line. He said the federal government has the power to tax any group of people it wants in order to incentivize them one way or another. Ok... so now our quest is clear... if we don't like this power of government, we have to limit (re-limit) government via a constitutional amendment.

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...