text: "Only Justice Roberts adhered to the conservative principle of deferring to the legislature". This is indeed a staple of originalist jurisprudence--with a significant caveat: that the statute at issue is constitutional.  AFCA was blatantly unconstitutional, and the contortions into which Roberts bent himself were beyond intellectually and legally embarrassing {finding that the penalty for not purchasing health insurance wasn't really a penalty, but a tax; notwithstanding that the administration, i.e., the proponents of the law, argued that it was not a tax.}. More significantly, why does the author characterize the Garland scenario as a "brutal wrong". Garland almost certainly would have ruled against DOGMATIC Catholic teaching on the two issues of most concern to the serious Catholic--abortion {infanticide} and homosexual marriage. What--pray, tell--is so "brutal" about that.