Could this ...

.
... be true?

So he read the newspapers and/or schmoozed, and after having taken the temperature of public sentiment--the liberal, east coast public sentiment--he decided the ACA had to stand at any cost. My guess is that Roberts originally wanted to strike down the mandate but keep the ACA by ruling the mandate was severable. But when the four dissenters would not go along with him on severability, he
So he read the newspapers and/or schmoozed, and after having taken the temperature of public sentiment--the liberal, east coast public sentiment--he decided the ACA had to stand at any cost. My guess is that Roberts originally wanted to strike down the mandate but keep the ACA by ruling the mandate was severable. But when the four dissenters would not go along with him on severability, he sided with the liberals and wrote a contorted decision to uphold the law. He was arguing backward from a desired outcome.sided with the liberals and wrote a contorted decision to uphold the law. He was arguing backward from a desired outcome.

If it is, then Roberts has to go. I have no philosophical argument with a justice changing his mind, but to reverse-engineer a decision? That's the kind of crap liberals pull.

Who among the current congress has the balls to call for his resignation?

pm