Is Chief Justice Roberts a Traitor to the Conservative Cause?

Without question, Chief Justice John Roberts has upset those on the right, myself included, by a Supreme Court Ruling upholding Obamacare.

The surprise is generated by two considerations.  First, the fact that it was he, and not the usual “swing man” Anthony Kennedy, who provided the fifth vote that secured the liberal victory.  Secondly, Roberts, a former member of Reagan’s White House and a Bush appointee, had a reputation as a staunch conservative voice on the Court. 

Understandably, Justice Roberts has drawn the ire of conservatives and other Americans because the result of his vote was to uphold a law which we oppose.  On the left, positive qualities, heretofore unnoticed, in the Chief Justice are trumpeted because their policy choice prevailed.

But as conservatives, don’t we believe in the rule of law even when the law is not of our preference?  Remember the catch phrase “a nation of laws not of men”?

Liberals don’t really endorse that sentiment.  Rather, laws and constitutions aren’t viewed as permanent.  They are construed to be in accord with their policy choices.  In an ironic sense, those on the left who view the constitution as a “living document” actually consider it as a dead letter.  Desired policy is not to be trumped by what was penned in 1787.

That’s not our perspective.  The “law of the land” is not a meaningless cliché to conservatives.

Thus, when a highly regarded jurist on the right makes a ruling, he is entitled to the presumption that it is based on his understanding of the Constitution and not as a conversion to the political views of the liberal brethren on the Court. 

In his controversial opinion upholding Obamacare as a constitutional exercise of Congressional power, Justice Roberts wrote:

“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments.  Those decisions are entrusted to our nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them.  It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”