Hacker News Reader

Comment by jansanchez | Hacker News Reader

Kennedy isn't always the swing vote. Sometimes Roberts is the swing vote.

Roberts has generally been considered the swing vote in cases where he needs to sort of fall-on-his-sword to preserve the non-partisan appearance of the court. The Obamacare ruling was one such case.

> Roberts has generally been considered the swing vote in cases where he needs to sort of fall-on-his-sword to preserve the non-partisan appearance of the court.

I think this is a fairly strained interpretation to try to defend the idea that the court is iron-locked into the "liberal 4" + "conservative 4" + Kennedy divide (casting a different divide as Roberts trying to create an illusion about the court), and it falls down when you have high profile cases like the today's Hollingsworth v. Perry [1] where the majority is made up of Roberts, Scalia, Ginsberg, Breyer, and Kagan.

[1] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf

> Roberts has generally been considered the swing vote in cases where he needs to sort of fall-on-his-sword to preserve the non-partisan appearance of the court.

Why? So he doesn't have a problem getting "re-elected?" I'm not sure why you think he is worried about the appearance of the court in that way.

The Court's power lies in its perceived integrity and being above the fray of election-driven politics. If it appears partisan, it risks being marginalized.

Remember, the Court gave itself the powers it has in Marbury vs. Madison, and has at times had folks like Jackson go "let them enforce it". If public opinion turns against the Court, politicians can as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com