Chief Justice Roberts already backed off some of his beliefs by voting with the liberals. He did this to avoid packing the Supreme Court. ...
...
You keep stating your opinions as if they were fact. From what I understand, you're not happy with this guy because he didn't vote as conservatively as you'd like. But you know, he's a Supreme Court Justice, you're not, so maybe he had good reasons to vote the way he did. He certainly has access to more information than you do. We've seen many times on these pages how you deliberately choose to ignore information that others provide when it doesn't suit your agenda.
Since you take pride in being a "contrarian" and a "rebel" (btw, you should read The Rebel Sell by Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter to get a different perspective on so-called rebellion), maybe you should apply that to your own biases. Go against your own beliefs, see where it leads. I find it hard to believe that a Supreme Court Justice is being co-opted based on the sole evidence that you don't like his decisions. That's a lot that you're asking us to accept. There may be more to his thinking than that, don't you think.
In the past, your "analyzes" have left a lot to be desired, given how often they have been refuted by others who know about the subject than you. The fact that you double down instead of reconsidering your position on things is not a sign of constancy. Or rebellion.