Miller Center

Next →
Partisan Rancor and the Independence of the Treasury
← Previous
Friday Roundup: the Supremes’ Moment in the Spotlight

You might also like...

Ted Kennedy and Health Care Reform (08/25/16)

Which of these presidents thought that “government is the problem?” (07/14/16)

Ted Kennedy and the Fight for Civil Rights (07/02/16)

Senator Edward M. Kennedy and U.S. Supreme Court Nominations (07/01/16)

Richard Nixon’s Greatest Hits (04/21/16)

Presidential Speech Archive

American President: A Reference Resource

Presidential Recordings

Presidential Oral Histories

← Return to Riding The Tiger

Roberts Rules and Obama Cares

President Barack Obama with Chief Justice John Roberts.

President Barack Obama with Chief Justice John Roberts, January 15, 2009. Official Photo by Pete Souza.

As I approached the U.S. Supreme Court on my way to this term’s last Decision Day, I suddenly found myself literally caught between two extreme factions in the health-care debate.  One group, led by two belly dancers and a compatriot carrying a bed-sheet labeled “Single Payer,” shimmied toward two bearded anti-Obamacare protestors who shouted at the gyrating dancers, “Communists!” and “Single payer is socialism!”  Momentarily stuck between the zealots, I felt like Chief Justice Roberts, trying to find an exit strategy.

An hour later I sat in my prized seat inside the churchlike courtroom and marveled at the chief’s painstakingly crafted opinion, upholding the Affordable Care Act (ACA), while attempting to extricate the high tribunal from a political quagmire.  Much has been made of this patently conservative jurist’s reaching a liberal outcome.  Is John Roberts the next David Souter, Harry Blackmun, William Brennan, or Earl Warren—his Supreme Court predecessors who disappointed their appointing presidents by swinging to the other side of the ideological spectrum?  Probably not.  One liberal decision—albeit in a landmark case—does not a judicial career make.  In fact, on the larger issues at stake in the ACA litigation (Congress’ commerce, “necessary and proper,” and spending powers), the chief reached conservative conclusions.  It remains to be seen whether his limits on legislative prerogatives are mere “blips,” as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her stinging dissent predicted, or lasting obstacles to future liberal policy initiatives.

More important, Roberts’ opinion, partially joined by the Court’s liberal quartet (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan), reflects his historic view of the chief justice’s role.  One of his first acts after confirmation was to send staff members to Chief Justice John Marshall’s Richmond, Virginia home to retrieve the fourth chief justice’s judicial robe on display there.  Roberts wanted to model his robe after the “great chief justice,” as Marshall is called.  The act speaks volumes.  Roberts’ mentor, William Rehnquist, who as an associate justice was dubbed the “Lone Ranger” for his many solo dissents, modeled his chief justice robe after a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta character (complete with four gold metallic stripes on the sleeves!).  Assuming the Court’s center chair in the wake of the polarizing Bush v. Gore decision, Roberts explained to George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen that he hoped to increase collegiality and unanimity among the nine justices.  Unanimity produces stability in the law, he reasoned, which, in turn, leads to more public respect for the tribunal. 

With the Court’s most recent approval ratings dropping to 44%, and three-quarters of Americans surveyed believing that the justices would follow their partisan inclinations in deciding the health-care case, Chief Justice Roberts faced a dilemma.  Siding with his conservative soul mates (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito) would confirm the view that the Court is just another political institution.  Instead, he assumed the uncharacteristic position of swing voter, casting the deciding vote between four liberals and four conservatives.

When the chief is in the majority, by tradition he assigns the author of the Court’s opinion.  Roberts chose to self-assign, putting the chief’s imprimatur on the controversial ruling.  In addition, to avoid a completely partisan result, he cast his deciding vote with the liberals to uphold the ACA, while incorporating elements from the conservative bloc’s dissent.

From my vantage point in the second row, I could see that the chief’s Solomonic decision had taken its toll on his normally imperturbable and confident visage, especially when Justice Kennedy attacked him from the right and Justice Ginsburg fired salvos from the left.  Neither the chief’s heart nor head seemed at ease.  Putting duty, leadership, and history ahead of ideology exacts a cost.  In his Senate confirmation hearings, John Roberts famously described a jurist’s job as that of the umpire, neutrally calling balls and strikes.  But if both teams are unhappy with the calls, everyone boos.

Beyond the Court’s arena, however, President Obama has emerged from this high-stakes game a winner, at least in the short run.  He centered his victorious 2008 campaign on creating a national health-care policy, was elected on this platform by a clear majority, saw it pass both houses of Congress (even if along partisan lines), urged the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the law, and now celebrates its declaration of constitutionality by a conservative chief justice.

But the partisan fault lines in Congress and across the street at the Court reflect those in the electorate, and Obama will have to face the consequences of his judicial victory—a reinvigorated GOP base, Tea Party, and Romney candidacy.  Chief Justice Roberts and his narrow majority affirmed the ACA’s euphemistically labeled “shared responsibility payment” as a tax.  Now there’s a winning campaign slogan for the president: “The Supremes Upheld My Tax!”

Not since the New Deal era has the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings on an incumbent president’s policies had such an impact on his reelection.  FDR won a landslide victory in 1936, in part, because the Supremes ruled against him.  President Obama faces the ironic prospect that he could lose the race because the Court ruled for him.

Barbara A. Perry is a Senior Fellow in the Miller Center’s Presidential Oral History Program.  You can follow her on Twitter @tweetbriar.

Date edited: 07/02/2012 (8:15AM)


Definitely lovely post as always, Barbara! I also appreciate you bcoz why I suddenly found myself like you literally caught between two extreme factions in the health-care debate. Can you please explain quickly lasting obstacles to future liberal policy initiatives? Thanks! :)

Well written and refreshingly succinct.  As you pronounce the President as the winner I wish you would have elaborated to the very grave possibilty that our country was the loser.  We saw politics play a major role in the one chamber it is to have no place.  This was not a case of Constitutional Analysis.  Constitutional Interpretation may be gray, but this decision was clearly black and white politics with one left field zinger that nobody saw coming.  I do not see it as positive.

Finally, I look at men such as Dwight D. Eisenhower and how he was able to put aside his personal views in order to fulfill his duty as president.  The supreme Court should take a long hard look at itself and see if they are living up to the standards that have been established in the past for the highest court in the land.  I only hope that I will have the integrity to feel the same way when the Supreme Court makes such a poor decision that I agree with

Barbara, your incisive comments did a great job of allowing your reader to be “in the court” when this decision was read; especially putting a very human face on the Chief Justice.  Thank you.
I suspect the implications of this nuanced decision will be debated for a long time with truly clear answers yet to come.

Rules for Comments

We reserve the right to remove any post or user.

Things that will get comments edited/deleted:

  • Offensive or abusive language or behavior
  • Misrepresentation (i.e., claiming to be somebody you're not) – using a “handle” is fine as long as it isn’t offensive, abusive, or misrepresentative
  • Posting of copyrighted materials
  • Spam, solicitations, or advertisements of any kind

We hope these rules will keep the discussion lively and on topic.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

← Return to Riding The Tiger