Since the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare - and Chief Justice Roberts surprise vote upholding it - a lot of speculation has focused on why Roberts voted as he did. Apart from any opinions he may have had on the case itself, some have argued that he was driven at least in part by a desire to ensure that the Supreme Courts' integrity not be compromised by what could be seen as a political decision.
This may or may not be the case, but it points out that part of what the Chief Justice is attuned to is the court's reputation, which in a sense is its major source of power. More than other members of the court, Roberts is tasked with preserving the strength of the court. That may help explain his decision, or not. Regardless, it points out the unique role of the chief justice on the court, which is what I want you to consider in this week's assignment.
What are commentators saying about John Roberts in the wake of the decision on the Affordable Care Act? What may have motivated his reasoning? What does it say about his goals for the court and his strategy for obtaining it?
Here are a few places to start your thinking on this matter:
- The Real Reason John Roberts Upheld ObamaCare?
- WSJ: A Vast New Taxing Power.
- Newt Gingrich: John Roberts' Obamacare Ruling 'Probably Healthy For The Country'
- ScotusBlog: Law Before Politics.
As always - find your own sources as well. Make it good - thanks.
