I think that John Roberts has more up his sleeve than most people realize. The first thing to remember is that, as Chief Justice, he gets to know what the other justices have decided before making his decision. The second thing to remember is that, by joining the majority, he gets to write the opinion himself.
His two Obamacare opinions demonstrate these points. In the first, he upheld the individual mandate in order to preserve it as a 2012 election issue against Obama. At the same time, he bargained with the liberal justices to include a limitation on the use of the Commerce Clause as a justification for federal regulation of businesses.
In his more recent decision, he joined the already established majority in order to reaffirm legislative authority in the face of increasing usurpation by the Executive Branch. Why would he do this? Ironically, the answer is to reverse the course of liberal judicial and political activism that has been dominant in this country for the past 20 years.
How would he do this? By recognizing that our last chances at saving our constitutional republic are fast approaching, and that a fundamental change in national political leadership must occur. In practical terms, this means Republican control of the White House and Congress (esp. Senate) after the 2016 elections. In rewriting the intentional language of the ACA, he has prevented a chaotic situation which undoubtedly would have redounded to the Republicans' detriment. Instead he has, once again, preserved Obamacare as a political albatross for the Democrats. It also stirs resentment of a "liberal court" appointed by "liberal politicians."
One may criticize the inclusion of political considerations in judicial decisions, but liberal judges have been playing this game at a professional level for many decades. Maybe it is time to have a professional on the other side.
His two Obamacare opinions demonstrate these points. In the first, he upheld the individual mandate in order to preserve it as a 2012 election issue against Obama. At the same time, he bargained with the liberal justices to include a limitation on the use of the Commerce Clause as a justification for federal regulation of businesses.
In his more recent decision, he joined the already established majority in order to reaffirm legislative authority in the face of increasing usurpation by the Executive Branch. Why would he do this? Ironically, the answer is to reverse the course of liberal judicial and political activism that has been dominant in this country for the past 20 years.
How would he do this? By recognizing that our last chances at saving our constitutional republic are fast approaching, and that a fundamental change in national political leadership must occur. In practical terms, this means Republican control of the White House and Congress (esp. Senate) after the 2016 elections. In rewriting the intentional language of the ACA, he has prevented a chaotic situation which undoubtedly would have redounded to the Republicans' detriment. Instead he has, once again, preserved Obamacare as a political albatross for the Democrats. It also stirs resentment of a "liberal court" appointed by "liberal politicians."
One may criticize the inclusion of political considerations in judicial decisions, but liberal judges have been playing this game at a professional level for many decades. Maybe it is time to have a professional on the other side.
