I won’t say my faith is completely restored, but Chief Justice Roberts went a long way towards rehabilitation my faith in the Supreme Court. (Justice Scalia, on the other hand, is irredeemably partisan and unprincipled.) With the Chief Justice’s opinion on the Obamacare case, we now know that there are at least a couple conservatives on the Court who make decisions based on principles, instead of what is best for the Republican party.
Back in April, I worried that the Court would make a decision based on bad principles. I don’t entirely agree with the Court’s decision, but I have no doubt that Chief Justice Roberts arrived there through a principled, logical thought process.
Natty Shafer Law 
June 29, 2012 at 5:22 PM
I think Justice Scalia signaled his displeasure on the outcome of this case early in the week with his completely partisan and over-the-top attack of the Obama administration with regard to the administration’s stance on immigration. It seemed like a schoolboy rant at the time, and was very puzzling. But it made complete sense once the Obamacare decision came down.
June 29, 2012 at 5:38 PM
Yes, I thought about that. At the time, I thought maybe he was getting crotchety in his old age, but I agree, it probably had more to do with his viewpoint losing with regard to Obamacare.
Somehow over the last few months, he has sunk lower in my estimation. He made no attempt to square his opinion yesterday with the one he wrote in Gonzales v. Raich, which gave Congress wide latitude in using the Necessary and Proper Clause to enact commercial legislation. Couple that with the partisan hackery he employed during oral arguments when he mentioned the “Cornhusker Kickback,” which was not actually a part of the final bill, but was rather a Fox News taking point.
More and more he is making decisions to benefit the Republican Party instead of for any principled reason. In interviews, he has used his vote in Texas v. Johnson (the flag burning case) as proof that he sometimes makes principled decisions, instead of for personal preference. Well, that’s a 1989 case. If he can’t find a more recent case where his principles trumped his preferences, that speaks volumes.