Roberts Really Did Switch His Vote On Health Care Law

According to a report from CBS News, based on interviews rather than deft exigesis of the ACA opinioin, Justice Roberts switched his vote on the health care law between the intial conference and the final product.  And, according to this report, this lead to "desperate" and "relentless" lobbying by Justice Kennedy to bring him back to right side.  Apparently, everyone at the Court is chit-chatting about this remarkable turn of events.

As Jeffrey Toobin and others have pointed out, this vote may have given Roberts the "credibility" to comfortably vote down affirmative action and  key parts of the Voting Rights Act.  But maybe we can dream that the vote also gave Kennedy cred with the right making him feel comfortable not joining Roberts in these efforts. 

Or maybe Obama will get re-elected and, mid-term, Justice Scalia will take E.J.Dionne's sage advice and resign.  Given his passion for changing federal immigration policy, it seems to me that Scalia would be perfect in the muscular role of Senator rather than serving as a bureaucrat working for the least dangerous branch.  Hey - he could even work to amend the Voting Rights Act.  I hear some conservatives used to think that legislatures were a really great way to make public policy.

Comments

[anon]

Dan: You might want to read thru the comments under "The Day After" below, where the CBS story was briefly discussed. Al's comments are there.
You say "I hear some conservatives used to think that legislatures were a really great way to make public policy." This may true, but did "liberals"? Did they think the legislatures should have been able to decide on abortion policy (our courts now micromanage parental notification, etc.), desegregation of schools (think busing), and all the rest?
Do you think that the Arizona law should have been upheld last week?
Why must the focus always be in finding division by casting aspirations and calling names on political grounds? Why must it always come down to "my team won" and not, e.g., a logical and learned discussion about consistency in the principle of deference? Why is the pot always calling the kettle black?

[cheap nike shoes]

I definitely savored every little bit of it and I submitted your site to some of the biggest social networks so others can find your blog.