Maybe it's me but something is really fishy about Roberts supporting ACA

[hifiguy]

100. Correct.

Roberts may be a corporate tool, but he's a smart man, unlike, say, Clarence Thomas. I saw an interview with Roberts on C-SPAN a few months ago and he discussed the SCOTUS' "self-inflicted wounds" and discussed Dred Scott at length as the prime example thereof.

He's a Chief Justice, not an Associate Justice. Chiefs are judged differently by history as their name is attached to the Court over which they preside. No Chief wants to see the prestige of the court diminished on his watch. The name of Chief Justice Roger Taney, who wrote Dred Scott, gives off a foul stench to this day. Roberts doesn't want to join the Taney club and I can't say I blame him.

This was in part a calculated move by Roberts to preserve the position and prestige of the SCOTUS. And principle happily coincided with expediency in this case.