Obviously Chief Justice John Roberts was going to take a hit in the polls after his ObamaCare decision — but a 40-point drop among Republicans? There’s no way he ever bounces back from this, right?
A Gallup poll released Monday found that Roberts’s favorables dropped 11 percentage points among all Americans since the last survey in September 2005. The most recent polling showed Roberts with 39 percent of national adults having a favorable opinion of him. In 2005, the same poll found that 50 percent of adults had a favorable view of the chief justice.
Among Republicans, Roberts’s drop has been more drastic. Sixty-seven percent of Republicans had a favorable view of Roberts in 2005, a figure which plummets 40 points to 27 percent in the 2012 survey. Four percent had an unfavorable view of the chief justice in 2005, jumping to 44 percent in the new poll.
Roberts’s betrayal wouldn’t have been as gut-wrenching if his decision had been based on principled arguments, even if they were wrong. The elevation of politics over principle made it much worse. He wasn’t just mistaken; he sold out his own side for political expediency. Americans have come to expect that from politicians, but not from the Supreme Court.
Republicans aren’t going to forgive Roberts anytime soon. But what about the other conservative justices on the Supreme Court who were reportedly furious with him?
Time heals all wounds, as the saying goes, and according to a couple of justices, the rancor at the U.S. Supreme Court in the wake of the Affordable Care Act decision probably won’t survive the summer.
“Everyone here does have the sense the institution is so much more important than the nine who are here at any point in time and we should not do anything to leave it in worse shape than it was in when we came on board,” one justice told the National Law Journal. “My guess is we’ll come back in the fall and have the opening conference and it will be almost the same. I would be very surprised if it’s otherwise.”
Another justice echoed those sentiments, for the most part. “The term always starts friendly and relaxed, and gets tense at the end when the most difficult cases pile up. It’s still collegial, but there is an overlay of frustration,” the NLJ reported a second justice as saying.
This seems much more intense than the usual “overlay of frustration.” Have there ever been this many leaks after a Supreme Court decision? That alone tells you the extent of the friction. Roberts didn’t just have a disagreement with his conservative colleagues; he basically threw them under the bus on what may be the defining case of his tenure.
There is also a saying : "Time wounds all heels " Here's lookin' at you , John Roberts .
By his actions, which managed the difficult feat of being at the same time arrogant and pusilanimous, Chief Justice Roberts deprived the American people of what they needed most in this case: a clear and unambigous clash of ideas. We needed to see the intellectual heft of the Court's conservatives brought to bear against that of the liberal wing, and then letting the more persuasive side win the long-term support of the public after a vigorous debate of the majority and dissenting opinions. That mattered even more than the actual decision. n nOne way or another, Obamacare will ultimately fall because it is bad policy and unworkable. But by being too clever by half and trying to give a victory to both sides, Justice Roberts cheated us of a necessary battle of wits that would have been very instructive to us all.
Stalin famously asked how many divisions the Pope had. In a similar vein, I would ask when Chief Justice Roberts must run for re-election and his approval rating among Republicans, Democrats, or any other group will have practical consequences for him.
Sameul Chase was impeached — the House charges, the Senate tries — I believe that it is just a majority vote in both bodies and Roberts needn't ever worry about the US Supreme Court ever again…. n nBTW, you don't have to go to Stalin — Andrew Jackson infamously said "John Marshall has made his decision, now lets see him enforce it." This was the "trail of tears" case.
Roberts fell for the liberal propaganda (endless stream of press clippings) that the Court should take the "high road" and uphold what was passed (as Obama claimed by a wide margin [a lie]) by Congress. Roberts was intimidated by Obama and the liberal media. His approval number (if he cares) would have been much higher had he just stuck with his original decision and struck ObamaCare down. I think Roberts was also cowed in the Arizona decision…
I ;look at this differently — I wonder how much longer he can remain chief justice. The left four are no more going to trust him than the British trusted Benedict Arnold, and I can just imagine what Scalia is saying… n nAnd the other question — who are the justices being quoted? This sounds to me like members of the majority quoting the party line, folk who sold Roberts a bill of goods and now are trying to make everyone else thing the same thing. n nConservatives tend to be "pig headed" when mad — I can't see the four conservatives on the court giving a damn about the "tradition and magestry" of the court — and Roberts will find that while he and his wife are invited to more leftist events, it comes at the expense of her existing friendships.
I read several places that Roberts was acting "coservatively" by not legislating from the bench. I thought the SCOTUS "job" was to uphold the Constitution. Gee, how naieve of me! He can never be trusted again.