Did the WSJ Editorialists notice something interesting, or are they inventing a fake storyline?

One telling note is that the dissent refers repeatedly to "Justice Ginsburg's dissent" and "the dissent" on the mandate, but of course they should be referring to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's concurrence. This wording and other sources suggest that there was originally a 5-4 majority striking down at least part of ObamaCare, but then the Chief Justice changed his mind.

The Justices may never confirm this informed speculation. But if it is true, this is far more damaging to the Court's institutional integrity that the Chief Justice is known to revere than any ruling against ObamaCare. The political class and legal left conducted an extraordinary campaign to define such a decision as partisan and illegitimate. If the Chief Justice capitulated to this pressure, it shows the Court can be intimidated and swayed from its constitutional duties.--WSJ, June 28, 2012,

The phrase "Justice Ginsburg's dissent" occurs by my count three times (see here). But, of course, Ginsburg did dissent to parts of the ruling, and by my lights the three occurrences all refer to Judge Ginsburg's insistence that the ACA would have been legal under the Commerce Clause.