Joan Biskupic Is Yell For The Incorrect Question

In a recent article, Joan Biskupic (citing anonymous Supreme Court sources) writes that Chief Justice Roberts changed his position afterwards conference inward the census case. While at that topographic point is non much especial inward the story, the basics are reminiscent of similar claims that the Chief Justice changed his position afterwards conference inward NFIB v. Sebelius. Why did he switch? That's what she would similar to know.

I mean value at that topographic point is far to a greater extent than interesting interrogation that she does non ask. It's close the premise that at that topographic point is something incorrect close a guess changing his or her initial vote inward a case. I know of no argue to mean value that at that topographic point is something incorrect close that. What would survive incorrect is for a guess to never modify his or her initial vote afterwards seeing the draft opinions. But a floor titled, "Justice X never changes her heed afterwards oral argument" volition in all likelihood never survive written.