|
Roberts and the dissents
So some posted a link to twitter of the WSJ journal saying that two court sources say Roberts did indeed switch his vote (at least a month ago), thus so enraging the other four horseman they they vowed not to join his opinion at all and instead did their unsigned joint dissent.
Okay, accepting that as true, isn't that rather insanely stupid? If the join Roberts in his commerce and N&P opinion, with which they do not disagree (except to the extent that Thomas thinks the 19th century rocks), they have a clear majority opinion narrowing the commerce clause precedents. That might actually have been worth something.
But instead, they've created a muddled argument on whether the dissents plus Roberts = precedent.
That seems a silly place to end up if you believe in limited government.
|
