And the Chief Justice decide to join the majority so he could assign the opinion to himself (and craft it as narrowly as possible).

If it turned out to be 5-4 in favor, I think Roberts would change his vote so he could write the opinion.

They go in reverse order of seniority
Roberts is chief J = most senior
Scalia (Reagan) and Thomas (GHW) are there together with Kennedy (Reagan) in terms of seniority.

If it was just Roberts writing the opinion, I'd say the mandate at the least is doomed. But if Kennedy is coauthoring it, then there's a chance this thing will be upheld (more astute Court observers, please feel free to correct me). I remember reading many Court experts thinking that if Kennedy ruled in favor of the law, then Roberts may vote along with him to "help his legacy" and avoid yet another 5-4 vote.

Of course, this could just as easily mean a 5-4 vote against the law.

slender reed of hope...

I hope it goes through...

signed on to or a concurrance opinion written by another justice. Concurring opinions are written when a justice agrees with the majority for the verdict but disagrees with parts of the majority opinion.

To me that indicates bad news. With Roberts authoring the ruling and Kennedy concurring but disagreeing with parts of it.

It could also be that Roberts joined the majority in order to choose Kennedy as the author of the majority opinion, and then added his own concurring (but not identical) views...

Of course, the whole discussion is based on a guess by a blogger - where's the evidence that any of it is true, and if it turns out to be true, how the hell did this blogger find out in advance?

what was the logic behind that statement?