of the law. that s one of the things that s so interesting about this book. i don t think a lot of people or i hadn t thought so much about them sort of trying to build coalitions in the supreme court. well, and also, you know, we had known of rumors of the chief maneuvering and changing at least one of his votes, but i also discovered that justices stephen breyer and elena kagan had changed their votes. they changed on the medicaid portion in part because they were worried that the chief was going to flip back the other way. oh, really? there was constant he has said he s only an umpire calling balls and strikes looking at things neutrally, but when you unpack this case, it s really a prime case study of the kind of considerations that go on. that s fascinating. that have to do with the atmosphere at the time, the court s institutional reputation, and perhaps the chief justice s reputation. lots of cross currents going on. it s not so black and white that it s just he
that far, ask onnd once he real that he was going to have to build some sort of coalition between the two competing sides, that s when he enlisted a couple other justices to come up with this compromise that ended up invalidating the medication expansion but upholding the core of the law. that s one of the things that s so interesting about this book. i don t think a lot of people or i hadn t thought so much about them sort of trying to build coalitions in the supreme court. well, and also, you know, we had known of rumors of the chief maneuvering and changing at least one of his votes, but i also discovered that justices stephen breyer and elena kagan had changed their votes. they were worried that the chief was going to flip back the other way. oh, really? there was constant he has said he s only an umpire calling balls and strikes looking at things neutrally, but when you