A New York Times opinion piece
by Jeffrey Rosen examines the role Chief Justice John Roberts had in two polarizing Supreme Court cases last week involving same-sex marriage and the Affordable Care Act.
Citing a quote from Roberts' confirmation in 2005, Rosen argues that Roberts' votes to uphold the subsidies in the Affordable Care Act, generally seen as a liberal move, and his right-leaning vote that went against making same-sex marriage a Constitutional right, are not political decisions but instead were made after taking Congress' intent behind laws into consideration.
"Umpires don't make the rules, they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules, but it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire," Rosen quotes Roberts as saying during his confirmation 10 years ago.
Rosen discusses Roberts' approach to applying the law, which experts have called "purposivism."
"As Chief Judge Robert A. Katzmann of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York argues in his recent book,
'Judging Statutes,' the chief justice embraces an approach called 'purposivism,' while Justice Scalia prefers 'textualism,'" Rosen writes. "In Judge Katzmann's account, purposivism has been the approach favored for most of American history by conservative and liberal judges, senators, and representatives, as well as administrative agencies. Purposivism holds that judges shouldn't confine themselves to the words of a law but should try to discern Congress's broader purposes."
In the case of the Affordable Care Act, the court ruled 6-3 that the subsidies portion of the law should remain intact. The decision allowed millions of Americans to maintain their health insurance coverage, and Roberts argued that Congress' intent behind passing the Affordable Care Act was not to "destroy" the healthcare system.
"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,"
Roberts wrote in the court's majority opinion.
As for
same-sex marriage, Roberts said the Constitution "is made for people of fundamentally differing views," according to Rosen's op-ed. Roberts borrowed the quote from former Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who served on the court from 1902-1932.
"It's understandable that liberals and conservatives are disappointed with the chief justice for rejecting positions they deeply favor," Rosen writes. "But Chief Justice Roberts's relatively consistent embrace of judicial deference to democratic decisions supports his statement during his confirmation hearings that judges should be like umpires calling 'balls and strikes.'"
The court's decisions on same-sex marriage and Obamacare have left conservative politicians up in arms. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, for example, said the justices showed contempt for the Constitution.
"On Thursday of last week the court rewrote Obamacare, rewrote the statute, ignored the language of the statute and as a result forced millions of people into this failed law,"
said Cruz, a Republican candidate for president. "The next day, the Supreme Court rewrote the Constitution and threw out the marriage laws of all 50 states."
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, another Republican candidate for president,
accused the court of "not reading the Constitution, not reading the dictionary."