For Linda Greenhouse, offering an argument that concludes with a negative judgment about Chief Justice Roberts’s Obamacare opinion amounts to horrible “invective.” But it’s fine for her to characterize the conservative dissent as an act of “breathtaking radicalism” and “astonishing. . . activism” on the basis of no argument at all.
Also, we’re supposed to take her word for it that pressure played no role in moving Roberts. On the other hand, we’re also supposed to trust her judgment that conservative criticism of Roberts might change his decisions in future cases. And of course we’re not supposed to think through the implicit, but obvious, contradiction in her assessment of Roberts’s character.