How was it different? “ACA violates the commerce clause” was the holding in Roberts’ opinion. Why didn’t they join that part?
In comparison, Thomas joined the overall dissent even though he disagrees with much of the commerce clause discussion. He would get rid of the “substantally effects” test entirely, but still joined the opinion endorsing the test.
I recognize that’s a rhetorical question, but…
The leaking surprises me. The utter pettiness of the minority is remarkable as well. Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy make no effort to perform a class act. The conservative quartet’s behavior seems to be modeled upon junior high school. My take is that people tend to lash out when they know that they are in the wrong, and striking down a major piece of legislation on the basis of half-baked, precedent-challenged, recently constructed, patently opportunistic and wholly partisan legal theories falls under that category. They shame themselves and the institution - not for the first time.
For many years, I read Scalia’s opinions with respect. Once upon a time.
Me too.
That may surprise some people here but its true. Back in the late 80’s my dad took me to see Scalia talk and I liked the guy and was seriously impressed with his intellect and thinking.
That time has long since passed for me. I now think Scalia is one of the most virulent justices to ever sit on the Supreme Court.
He didn’t actually write that, did he? Forgive me if I’m wrong, but the ACA doesn’t *violate *the commerce clause, the ruling was simply that the commerce clause doesn’t authorize Congress to pass the ACA.
You’ll have to ask them how it’s different and why. Unlike- apparently- a great swath of the SDMB, I am not privy to the thought processes of the justices.
Hey, Scalia and Thomas do us one better. When applying their original intent jurisprudence, they are able to read minds across time and space. Even the host of Crossing Over typically limits himself to the recently deceased: Scalia and Thomas can mind meld back 225+ years!
Nor am I. I’ve asked certain dopers what the evidence is that Justice Roberts thought a certain way. I’ve received no responses.
Trying to guess at what people are thinking is not mind-reading. It’s how you deal with people in general. Right now you are guessing about what my exact meaning is in responding to you.
Sure, but nobody gives a shit why you responded. People apparently do give a shit - or several - why Roberts voted to uphold the mandate.
I understand the question, but am curious as to what possible difference could it make, if he did? And who’s business is it anyway? He’s certainly entitled to, so why would anyone care? What if he decided weeks ago and kept it to himself? Again, what whit of difference does it make? Who cares? How does it matter when he made the decision?