Hacker News Reader

Comment by bigmattystyles | Hacker News Reader

Maybe I’m getting older but while I still think I’m pretty liberal, I appreciate John Roberts in his role as Chief Justice. I’ll never agree with him on some hot button issues and I know he’s likely to do a lot of damage to, for instance, Roe in the next year but his efforts to maintain the integrity of the court are not lost on me. With the make up of the court now, it’s probably futile, but it’s not lost on me.

View on HN

> I know he’s likely to do a lot of damage to, for instance, Roe in the next year

It's difficult to predict which way a Supreme Court Justice will rule on "hot button" issues. However with John Roberts, you can see that he has been voting with the liberal wing of the Court more frequently as the newer Justices take the court more to the right.

If anything, it seems he is generally _not_ in favor of upsetting long standing precedents here. One might predict his vote will be to actually preserve the status quo on these "hot button" issues in the coming time.

I agree but if he votes with the rest of the conservative wing on Roe, he can and likely will assign himself the writing of the majority opinion. Then, hopefully, and as you say, he will keep the opinion narrow. If he votes with the liberal wing, Roe still goes down but then Thomas or Alito will get to write it. Rock, meet hard place. SCOTUS will lose what if any integrity it has left. McConnell and the senate did this, first with preventing Garland then jamming ACB through.

I don't think we must lay too much emphasis on writing the majority opinion. After all, the majority opinion is something that needs concurrence from everyone who is voting with it. Given that the Justices could have their majority without John Roberts, his influence in shaping the final outcome is limited.

Perhaps the other Justices will ache for the credibility gained with John Roberts being on their side and will thus agree to a narrowly worded opinion written by him -- it is a tantalizing possibility that you suggest.

But I think John Roberts being the leader of the institution might be keen to be on the "right side of history" on any highly controversial social issue and might just vote on the merits of the matter (as he sees it) -- even if that means he would be in the minority.

The phrase "right side of history" is difficult to explain but America should see what the rest of the world has decided regarding Women's reproductive rights. The trend seems to indicate that the direction of travel in America is against the rest of the world (developed and developing). This fact might be on Robert's mind as he decides what is the "right side of history."

---

P.S.

> you say, he will keep the opinion narrow

BTW I don't think I implied that anywhere in my response. I didn't express my opinion on what Robert's opinion might be _if_ he wrote the majority. Rather, I was generally saying that he would vote to preserve the status quo. The possibility to be able to write the majority opinion (and thus vote with the conservatives) option is definitely intriguing and was mentioned by you...

If you follow his rulings, a lot are underwhelming for a sitting Chief. You got the time, read his rulings vs Thomas. His ACA ruling was the worst in my opinion using commerce as excuse and completely ignore the main constitution. And in the end ACA collapse itself. Just to show, the judge has no sense what is practical. Then of course his controversial involvement in denying voting fraud cases with no standing or just ignore (aka weak and scared). You either be consistent on liberal say RBG or conservative like Scalia. You just don't be in the middle flip-flopping and weak especially you are a Chief.

> His ACA ruling was the worst in my opinion using commerce as excuse and completely ignore the main constitution

The Commerce Clause is a fairly central part of the “main constitution”, whether you like it or not.

It's not a political office. They aren't "supposed to be liberal or conservative." They are supposed to apply the law as best they can given their experience.

> It's not a political office.

Yes, it is.

It's not a popularly elected office, but then, neither is the Presidency. Certainly, every officer directly appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate is political, legal terms of art about the two “political branches” notwithstanding.

It's political in the sense that people are political, but judges in general are supposed to try to behave as I said. They aren't supposed to be beholden to anything other than the law. Certainly not reelection.

How did you feel about his opinion on Rucho v. Common Cause [1]? (Briefly I believe it summarized to "partisan gerrymandering is constitutional, but racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional".)

Did that preserve the integrity of the court in your eyes? When the court itself admits the very concept of partisan gerrymandering is "incompatible with democratic principles", does this really preserve "equal justice under the law", which they claim [2] is their ultimate responsibility?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rucho_v._Common_Cause

[2] https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/about.aspx

Roberts cares about preserving the integrity of his legacy, not the integrity of the country. He’s been instrumental in elevating money in politics (Citizens United) and shredding the Voting Rights Act (Shelby). He’s likely to vote against the patently unconstitutional Mississippi case that will end Roe, but that’s only because he cares about his legacy, not because he’s your friend. Elie Mystal had a great article about this in 2020, pre Amy Coney Barrett. https://www.thenation.com/article/society/roberts-abortion-c...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com