Chris Hayes' clip from July regarding the 4 SC dissenters from the 1st Obamacare case.

[boguspotus]

I thought this was very interesting. Do you think the 4 dissenters from the first Obamacare SC case are totally going to go opposite of what they stated in their earlier dissenting opinion? I wouldn't think they would be that brazen to do a 180 - but who the hell knows??

[link:http://www.msnbc.com/all-in-with-chris-hayes/watch/supreme-court-caught-red-handed-on-obamacare-312267843982|

[ctaylors6]

1. I don't think

that's as clear as the guy in the video thinks. The dissent did not directly address the point being raised in the newer cases. I don't know who Chris Hayes is since I don't watch cable TV news but he doesn't seem to have a legal background. When faced with a case of legislative interpretation, courts must examine the passage at issue in a lot more detail then was quickly referred to in the dissent. They look at plain text and legislative history. And any such language in a dissent would at best be dictum.

[geek tragedy]

2. They vote based on the outcome they want not

what they think the law says.