IF scalia left that in on purpose to embarrass Roberts, then Scalia should be removed from the court, he's not worthy of the job, to play that dirty....he's scum of the earth.and as far as Gingsburg, she did decent on part of the majority opinion, is what an update on your article said....and that can't be ruled out as easily as the opinion writer wants to....
She joined the majority.
From the web....
Nine times Scalia refers to Ginsburgs opinion on the mandate not as a concurrenceagreeing with the result, but for different reasonsbut as a dissent. An opinion that reaches the same result but by a different road is not a dissent. And there was not a dissent. There were three: Thomass, Ginsburgs, and Scalias. When there are three dissentstwo other dissentsto refer to one of them as the dissent is, at the least sloppy.
Is this deliberatethat Scalia wants us to know that his opinion was originally written to be the opinion of the Court? Or is this simply sloppy draftsmanshipchronic laziness at revision?
And what made Roberts peel off?
Inquiring minds want to know
As far as Roberts changing his mind, or his mind was not made up yet when Scalia presumed it was....only they can tell you.