ObamaCare: Was the conservative dissent on the mandate originally a majority opinion? posted at 4:01 pm on June 28, 2012 by Allahpundit There's a fair reason to think so and a not-so-fair reason. First, the not-so-fair : Scalia's dissent, at least on first quick perusal, reads like it was originally written as a majority opinion (in particular, he consistently refers to Justice Ginsburg's opinion as "The Dissent") . Back in May, there were rumors floating around relevant legal circles that a key vote was taking place, and that Roberts was feeling tremendous pressure from unidentified circles to vote to uphold the mandate. Did Roberts originally vote to invalidate the mandate on commerce clause grounds, and to invalidate the Medicaid expansion, and then decide later to accept the tax argument and essentially rewrite the Medicaid expansion (which, as I noted, citing Jonathan Cohn, was the sleeper issue in this case) to preserve it? Scroll down to page 138 of the justices' opinions to see Ginsburg's opinion described as a "dissent." Minor problem with this theory: Her opinion was a dissent. She and the liberals lost on the Commerce Clause argument over the mandate, which is what the conservatives' joint opinion was addressing when it referred to her view as dissenting. The terminology's not inaccurate, just a little odd given that it was the conservative side that ultimately ate a big ol' shinolaburger today. Ed Whelan's reason for thinking the conservative opinion was originally a majority opinion is more convincing: The joint