Is Chief Justice Roberts A Secret Liberal?

[Chris]

A libertarian response from Reason.com: No, Chief Justice John Roberts Is Not a 'Secret Liberal'

...You may have noticed that Roeder makes a foundational error at the outset. He confuses the outcome of a case with the legal reasoning that led to that outcome. The problems only grow from there.

In a manner of speaking, yes, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius does count as a "liberal" win, because the liberal Obama administration won. But why did the liberal side win? What did the Court actually say in its decision?

Before I get into that, let me go back to Roeder's assertion that "the chief justice was widely expected to vote to kill the [health care] law."

Not everyone back then was so sure that Roberts would "kill the law." Seven months before the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Obamacare case, I wrote the following: "Roberts may very well uphold the health care law as an act of judicial restraint."

I wrote that because it seemed to me that Roberts came from the school of legal conservatism that puts serious stock in the doctrine of judicial restraint, or judicial deference—the idea that judges should defer to the democratic branches of government whenever possible, nullifying duly enacted laws on only the rarest of occasions. As the conservative legal icon Robert Bork liked to put it, "let the majority have its way." It also seemed to me that this deferential doctrine was going to play an important role in the looming SCOTUS showdown over heath care and that Roberts would be the one to watch on that front.

So why did the liberal side win the case? Or, more accurately, why did the conservative chief justice vote to uphold the health care law?

Here is what Roberts had to say for himself: "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." In short: Roberts made the familiar argument for judicial deference....

[MisterVeritis]

A libertarian response from Reason.com: No, Chief Justice John Roberts Is Not a 'Secret Liberal'

In other words, Roberts is a dickhead who is not to be trusted with the Constitution.

[Chris]

In other words, Roberts is a dickhead who is not to be trusted with the Constitution.

No, he's a conservative who adheres to judicial deference.

[MisterVeritis]

No, he's a conservative who adheres to judicial deference.

No. He is an untrustworthy dickhead.

[Don]

I read somewhere when he was being considered that although he was a conservative judge he had a tendency to rule in favor of things that leant more power to the executive than the constitution allowed. Not so much a strict constitutional originist like Justice Scalia. Too bad. I hope we do better with Justice Gorsuch.

[Chris]

I read somewhere when he was being considered that although he was a conservative judge he had a tendency to rule in favor of things that leant more power to the executive than the constitution allowed. Not so much a strict constitutional originist like Justice Scalia. Too bad. I hope we do better with Justice Gorsuch.

I think Justice Gorsuch is going to be very outspoken. He made headlines today: http://thepoliticalforums.com/thread...one-Tracking-C