Roberts is a strategist. Had he voted against Obamacare it would have still passed, with everything the leftists wanted in it. But by voting for it, he was able to insert a poison pill almost guaranteeing its destruction.
Now this time, making such a seemingly naive statement I strongly suspect also has a deep, ulterior motive. On the surface, it is just him defending the judicial branch. And had it been just between him and President Trump, it would have had a different meaning.
But senator Grassley, current but outgoing chair of the senate judiciary committee also chimed in. This changed everything, and created a “strategic triangle”. Please also note that the next senate judiciary committee is going to be pruned in size, making it easier to act.
President Trump of the Executive Branch, and the Republican US Senate, with the Chief Justice of the POTUS asserting the neutrality of the SCOTUS.
The purpose of this almost has to be a *major* reorganization of the judicial branch, led by the incoming chairman of the senate judiciary committee Lindsay Graham, who is positively chomping at the bit to carry out such reform.
Senator Grassley could only chime in because he is leaving, and so Senator Graham won’t have to. A smaller committee won’t have as many Democrats to set up roadblocks and waste time.
Tacticians fight battles. Strategists win wars.
Violating the rule of law to ostensibly support the rule of law is ultimately a losing proposition Constitutionally.
Exult in more 3D Chess if you like; I refuse to do so. Roberts had no prerogative to so act “strategically”!