Read deeper into the story and you will find that her “Source” is one of the Supreme Court Justices.
Not necessarily. One justice told her that there’s a defection about once a year, but the other claims are not directly tied to anybody specific.
I don’t buy that Roberts changed his mind a month ago though. I think this is trying to make it seem that Roberts didn’t hate the decision he ended up reading. The report that his eyes were red and he was visibiy unhappy while reading “his” decision suggests otherwise though. And the opinions read as if nobody had time to change their arguments to reflect the final vote. For instance, the dissent doesn’t rebut the majority opinion, as is usual. And it refers to Ginsburg’s opinion as the dissent rather than the majority. If Roberts had changed his mind a month ago the opinions would/should have been adjusted to reflect that.
I think the media is realizing it is too obvious that Roberts changed his vote on this, and they are spinning to make it appear that it was something Roberts deliberated about long and hard - not at the last minute as a result of threats. Again, though, the red eyes and unhappy demeanor when Roberts read the decision doesn’t fit that story very well. And if there was a bitter, month-long deliberation to try to get Roberts to change his mind back to overturning Obamacare, I would expect the dissent to drill home those points. But they didn’t. And I would expect at least one of the conservative justices to give a scathing dissent that they read out loud. But Scalia’s scathing dissent was used up on Monday with the AZ decision.
I think we’ve entered the spin zone. The media has to acknowledge that Roberts changed his vote but they desperately want to make us believe it wasn’t because of threats.
And they’re using unnamed sources to make the claim, while briefly mentioning a justice as a source for a different claim.