Roberts' Obamacare decision looked more political than judicial

The mystery of why Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts switched positions on the constitutionality of Obamacare continues. But switch he did, in a way that looks more political than judicial. The switch still does not speak well of him.

These reflections come, it must be said, from a third-hand report. The March issue of the Atlantic will feature a review by liberal Chicago lawyer Michael O’Donnell of a forthcoming biography of the Supreme Court leader. The book, titled “The Chief: The Life and Turbulent Times of Chief Justice John Roberts,” is by CNN legal analyst Joan Biskupic. It sounds like a good one. For now, what’s most interesting in the review, and what is certain to get the most attention when the book comes out, is Biskupic’s reporting on Roberts’ role in salvaging Obamacare.

Biskupic’s biography will confirm the original, contemporary reporting of CBS’ Jan Crawford, to the effect that in conference, Roberts eventually sided with the four other justices who found Obamacare’s individual mandate unconstitutional. Then, just as Crawford had reported, he changed his mind and decided that what had once been a bit of a side argument – that the mandate was a “tax,” and thus (due to some logical somersaults) allowable after all – was indeed one he could hang his hat on, and one that could save the health law.

More