Not just some, 4 of 9 have turned over and Beyer’s replacement pre-appointed, oddly enough. The balance has also shifted. It’s a different Court than it was twelve years ago, and lazy to conflate them regardless of whether you think the result would be the same.

To that point, need I remind that the case was decided unanimously, with five dissenting only in part? Ginsburg, Steven’s, Sotomayor, Beyer, and Thomas had disagreement in how to reach the end result, but signed on for the end result. It’s not hard to understand why:

Fundamentally, the idea of banning a book critical of Hillary Clinton in the run up to an election or primary is a bit hard to swallow as benefitting any but the Hillary Clinton’s of the world.

Evidently, how you rationalize banning it was arguably worse in principle than how you rationalize allowing it.