June 19, 2020--Swing Time With the Supremes

Considering recent SCOTUS decisions--for L.G.B.T.Q. job protection and saving DACA--I resubmit something I wrote and posted back in October, 2018. About how the Supreme Court might operate with Chief Justice Roberts more and more becoming the court's swing vote--


Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court for the New York Times, in a postmortem after the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, wrote that with the departure of Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court is now left without a swing vote. Expect, he says, very conservative decisions, among others, about abortion (severely restrict or end them), affirmative action (sack it), redistricting (what states are doing is OK), and voting rights (not to worry too much about them).

While I'm not so sure Kennedy did all that much swinging, it is true that on subjects such as gay rights he usually voted with the liberal minority. Mainly, though, he joined conservatives on the court in a series of 5-4 decisions about presidential power, corporate reach, and the funding of political campaigns.

There may be, though, another way to think about this. Even with Kavanaugh seated, instead of a predictable suite of conservative 5-4 decisions, we may find a surprising number, still 5-4s, tipped in a surprisingly liberal direction. 

We could see more moderate and even occasional progressive judgements then anticipated with someone other than Kennedy or, God help us, Kavanaugh agreeing with the four-member liberal wing of the court.

I see the strong possibility that Chief Justice John Roberts may turn out to be an occasional swing vote, especially when issues are of such magnitude that he does not want his court to be perceived as acting too regressively or with too much partisanship.

Case in point, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) where Roberts struggled to find a way, a rationale that would work for him and allow him to vote to uphold it. Which he did. (Swingman Kennedy voted with the other three conservative judges and argued vigorously to get Roberts to join them.)

Stretching the language of the actual Obamacare legislation, he saw the individual mandate of the ACA to be funded by a tax and not by either subsides or penalties. And, thus, constitutional. A stretch but revealing--he was so eager to find the ACA upholdable that he became inventive when it came to finding a way to sustain it.

Why might that be? Judicial rationalization trumping ideology and even belief?

Because it's his court. Robert's court. Forever in history, whatever the court does or does not do, finds constitutional or lacking in precedent will be attributable to the Robert's Court.

It wasn't the Scalia Court, nor was it the Thomas Court, or for that matter the Ginsberg Court. It's the Robert's Court as it was the Warren Court, the Burger Court, and Rehnquist Court.

History-minded, as all chief justices are, Roberts may not want his court to be known ever after as heartless and insensitive to the lives of Americans and our institutions. For him to be perceived that way.

I may be indulging in wishful thinking. But, then again, let's wait and see. Stranger things have happened with the Supreme Court.