Really. This is from the opinion journal column yesterday by James Taranto. The whole commentary is worth reading.
Here's Ruth Bader Ginzberg dissenting from the majority opinion written by John Roberts, because she and the other three Justices don't like the logic of why he sided with them!
Amazing - as you read this, you can literally hear the sneer in her voice. Doesn't John Roberts understand that all-powerful central government is the key to earthly happiness?
"Bitter concurrence" may sound like an oxymoron, but Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by colleagues Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, filed one yesterday in NFIB v. Sebelius, the ObamaCare case.
Ginsburg was full of snark, and her target was Chief Justice John Roberts (citations omitted): "According to the Chief Justice the Commerce Clause does not permit that preservation. This rigid reading of the Clause makes scant sense and is stunningly retrogressive. . . . The Chief Justice's crabbed reading of the Commerce Clause harks back to the era in which the Court routinely thwarted Congress' efforts to regulate the national economy in the interest of those who labor to sustain it. . . . The Chief Justice's novel constraint on Congress' commerce power gains no force from our precedent and for that reason alone warrants disapprobation. . . . The Chief Justice also calls the minimum coverage provision an illegitimate effort to make young, healthy individuals subsidize insurance premiums paid by the less hale and hardy. This complaint, too, is spurious. . . . Failing to learn from this history, the Chief Justice plows ahead with his formalistic distinction between those who are "active in commerce," and those who are not. . . . The Chief Justice accepts just such specious logic when he cites the broccoli horrible as a reason to deny Congress the power to pass the individual mandate. . . . If long on rhetoric, the Chief Justice's argument is short on substance."
We better beat these people in November.