So, when Justice Kennedy is retired, and until a bona fide originalist Justice is seated on the bench, in the interim will Chief Justice Roberts assume the "swing voter" role? Strange question? I don't think so.
In view his reckless decision to uphold Obamacare's blatantly unconstitutional "individual mandate", one should properly question the consistency of his originalist cred. That decision was an ignominious violation of the Constitution, and most of us know it.
So, what explains Roberts's considerably less than textual, aka conservative, approach to the Constitution? Or, said another way, what explains his unreliable adherence to the Constitution's original meaning and intent?
According to George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, for whom I have great respect, “Roberts is a conservative, but he is an institutionalist. He believes deeply in the Supreme Court.” I had suspected this long ago, but this is the first time a constitutional scholar has validated that suspicion. If entirely true, this isn't at all reassuring, folks. To me, that means one thing: because of his seemingly overriding respect for the institution itself, then, by extension, Roberts adheres to the destructive doctrine of "judicial supremacy" vs "Constitutional Supremacy", the former a toxic Progressive doctrine which, since the mid-19th century, has resulted in the Court's nearly relentless infidelity to the Constitution.
Again, as Turley points out, "Roberts "believes deeply in the Supreme Court." If we could be assured of his more consistent devotion to the Constitution, I'd feel a helluva lot safer. But, since the guy has given me scant reason to trust him, let's hope a genuine guardian America's first principles is confirmed very soon.
