The Supreme Court's Big Surprise

The Supreme Court held a surprise affirmation party for Obamacare today. Most pundits and experts had predicted the health insurance law would be overturned, and aren't enjoying the party very much. But the biggest surprise was the key vote in upholding the law, which came from Chief Justice John Roberts. Most observers of the court had perceived Roberts to be reliably conservative in the political sense. The Citizens United case (Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 50 (2010)) was regarded as a classic example of how Roberts and the four other conservative justices on the Supreme Court banded together to rule favorably for conservative interests, and unleash a torrent of business funding into the campaign process, most of which is going to Republican candidates.

In today's healthcare ruling, however, Roberts appeared to take a judicially conservative approach, finding a narrow ground to uphold the mandate for uninsured individuals to buy coverage and deferring to the policy judgments of the legislative branch, while explicitly avoiding any endorsement of them. Such displays of judicial restraint have seemingly fallen out of fashion at the Court. No doubt Roberts knows that public estimation of the Court has been falling as it has increasingly been seen as a political body. The perceived politicization of the Supreme Court has turned the judicial confirmation process for both Supreme Court justices and lower court judges into a hyper-paranoid brawl of an inquisition over every possible nuance of every statement, whether written or oral and without regard to remoteness in time, made by the nominee under any circumstances whatsoever. It's no wonder the judicial confirmation process is clogged, backlogged and bogged down. Nominees are no longer viewed as potential judges, but as potential tools to secure political gains.

Restoring the Supreme Court and the lower courts to their intended role as judicial forums would force politicians in Congress and the White House to take their jobs more seriously. They could no longer count on the courts to clean up messes they make. Possibly one reason why conservatives in Congress were so uncompromising about Obamacare is that they gambled the Court would smack it down if they couldn't. If they had understood the Court would show deference to the outcome of the political process, they might have engaged more seriously with the Democrats to fashion a compromise. Perhaps this is one message the Chief Justice meant to send. Certainly, if Obamacare had been struck down, some alternative more acceptable to conservatives would have been enacted to replace it, but then very possibly litigated by liberals and dumped back into the Supreme Court's lap. The Court might then have been placed in the position of fashioning America's health insurance policies. Roberts, as a judicial conservative, would surely not have wanted this.

The Supreme Court is the duck billed platypus of the democratic process, an oddly structured decisional body composed of unelected people with lifetime appointments who can make crucially important decisions based on whatever they individually believe to be right. While all of them purport to base their decisions on the Constitution, the flexibility of that document is copiously evidenced by the abundance of concurrences and dissents that blossom with each difficult decision. To maintain its legitimacy and effectiveness, the Court has to find and fulfill what each generation of citizens perceives as its proper judicial role. It must treat the Constitution as an organic organic (not a typo) document, with its meaning capable of changing and evolving as the needs and welfare of the nation require. For example, the meaning of the Commerce Clause, as interpreted in early New Deal cases, would not be conducive to today's federal economic regulatory structure, designed as it is to foster nationwide confidence in the regulated matters. Had that interpretation not changed with the times, we would probably be a poorer nation today.

Yet, the Court cannot reach so far that it appears to be stretching beyond the meaning of the words of the Constitution. Americans have a very high regard for the rule of law. This is not surprising, considering that the United States was not founded based on tribal or ethnic loyalties, or religious beliefs, or the imposition of sheer military power. It was founded by the voluntary congregation of former British colonies that depended greatly on the effective functioning of the Constitution to maintain their union and thus ensure their survival. Without the rule of law, the nation could fail (and almost did fail, twice). The Supreme Court has the task of constraining the other branches of the government, the states, and, indeed, itself to stay within their respective constitutional roles. Just as the Court has to stop Congress, the Executive Branch and the states from overreaching, it has to stop itself from overreaching.

Finding the right balance between judicial activism and judicial restraint is one of the most crucial challenges for every generation of justices, and especially every chief justice. The loudest sound you hear in the political blogosphere tonight is conservative teeth gnashing. But behind that, there is a faint of hum of legal scholars saying "hmmmmmmmmmm, maybe John Roberts will attain stature among the chief justices."