JOHN ROBERTS, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, has conservatives vexed. To many of them, Mr Roberts' dissent to the majority's decision legalising gay marriage today seems flatly inconsistent with his reasoning in the King v Burwell case, which saved Obamacare. "Under the Constitution", Mr Roberts wrote in his dissent in the gay marriage case, "judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be". But didn't the court effectively rewrite the text of the Obamacare just two days ago when it ruled that insurance exchanges established by the federal government should be counted among those "established by the states"?
"The inside of John Roberts's head must be a very interesting place," tweets John Podhoretz, editor of Commentary. "Kind of like the Civil War, only no Confederate flag". Mr Podhoretz vividly captures a common conservative sentiment about Mr Roberts today.
It is easy to see why Mr Roberts' two opinions may seem at odds. He seems both willing and unwilling to have the court say what the law should be. But Mr Roberts is in fact totally consistent. A closer look at his opinions on Obamacare...Continue reading