Roberts's Rules (pretty much explains his decision...)

The Atlantic ^ | January, 2007 | JEFFREY ROSEN

[nerdgirl]

Some of the least successful chief justices, Roberts suggested, had faltered because they misunderstood the job, approaching it as law professors rather than as leaders of a collegial Court. Harlan Fiske Stone, a former dean of Columbia Law School, was a case in point. Stone “was a failure as chief, because of his misperception of what a chief justice is supposed to be,” Roberts said, gesturing to the justices’ private conference room through an open door of his office. “It’s his desk out there that is separate from the conference table, and he … sat at his desk, and the others were at the table, and he almost called on them and critiqued their performances. They hated that.” Roberts laughed. “As a result, he was a failure as a chief justice.”

In Roberts’s view, the most successful chief justices help their colleagues speak with one voice. Unanimous, or nearly unanimous, decisions are hard to overturn and contribute to the stability of the law and the continuity of the Court; by contrast, closely divided, 5–4 decisions make it harder for the public to respect the Court as an impartial institution that transcends partisan politics.

[nerdgirl]

For anybody still wondering "WHY DID THIS MAN DO THIS!!!" This article from 2007 gives you all of the explanation you'll ever need. Like it or not, this is who Justice Roberts is, and always was. For better and for worse...

[Pollster1]

Roberts will never make a worse decision than the one we saw last week. To bankrupt this country, trample individual freedom, and expand federal government power without apparent limit with a single vote - that’s an accomplishment that will never be topped.

[nerdgirl]

Sorry this got posted twice, back button problem.

[Paladin2]

"In particular, Roberts declared, he would make it his priority, as Marshall did, to discourage his colleagues from issuing separate opinions. “I think that every justice should be worried about the Court acting as a Court and functioning as a Court, and they should all be worried, when they’re writing separately, about the effect on the Court as an institution.” "

So, Roberts went off and wrote his own RobertsCareTax opinion while the two factions also wrote their own dissenting opinions?

Good job John.

[nerdgirl]

Yes I think the decision surely sucked.

But part of my quest since Thursday has been to understand the WHY of it, and even though I hate the decision, I think now I have some idea why he did it.

[nerdgirl]

Very good point!

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

Ah - the old “Reaching across the aisle” in other words. How very special.

[Timber Rattler]

Yep, lots of warning signs in this article.

If that CBS News report from earlier today is accurate though, he pretty much through his much cherished collegiality with Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito out onto the rubbish heap.

[afraidfortherepublic]

[Paladin2]

"Another reason for Rehnquist’s success as a chief justice, Roberts said, was his temperament—namely, that he knew who he was and had no inclination to change his views simply to court popularity."

Stike Two....

[rurgan]

Roberts did this because it is a socialist/statist/marxist. Same Reason Obama, Pelosi, Reid did it.

[Paladin2]

"Roberts approvingly quoted the observation of Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes that “Marshall’s preeminence was due to the fact that he was John Marshall.” If Roberts succeeds, his success will be due to the fact that he is John Roberts. "

Roberts is not going to become another Marshall. More likely to become another John Boner.

[Paladin2]

Interesting article, thanx for posting.

[Paladin2]

[nerdgirl]

My husband doesn’t understand why I am still reading about this, much less freeping about it! Thinks I am wasting energy and spinning my wheels. But I didn’t know enough about Roberts a week ago to have seen this coming, so I was just perplexed and mad...now I’m just mad.

[musicman]

Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!

[nerdgirl]

That is ridiculous and makes you look stupid for saying it.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

Pure idiocy!

He is supposed to defend constitutional principles and nothing else.

[tflabo]

misChief inJustice John Robs US.

[uncbob]

So if the reports are true why did he change his mind