I think the SCOTUS should never have heard the case. It was a state matter. But since they did hear it, I am in agreement with Thomas in that the court has no standing to use the Constitution to mandate administrative measures for local governments. I think the position Roberts took is, like those with whom he agreed, purely political.
Arkes' reasoning on why the 'liberal' wing of the Court voted the way that they did works well for his article, but isn't necessarily the case.
Are you going to offer some evidence that Arkes is wrong, or did you just intend to cast aspersions without anything to support them?
So far, I have no problems with Roberts. He seems like a reasonable guy.
Of course you don't. Lest you think my developing problem with him has to do solely with him siding against Thomas and Scalia on this case, this is now the third decision that has reached my awareness in which Roberts took a distinctly non-originalist position.