The Future of the Roberts Court?

John Roberts is currently in position similar to Benedict Arnold after West Point.  Keep in mind that Arnold was a hero to the Revolution, instrumental in a number of hard-won victories and severely wounded in battle.  But in his mind Arnold struggled between the cause of American independence and personal recognition.  In the end, in one fateful decision he joined his former foes. 

We are not in a shooting war and John Roberts need not fear the noose, but he does share a problem with Arnold.  The Americans made Arnold’s name synonymous with treachery and the British didn’t trust him.  I’m sure the Roberts decision on ObamaCare was seen by him as Solomonic.  It wasn’t, and as his decision is analyzed and as sources in the Supreme Court expose the deliberations, Roberts will be seen as a man who put self before principle by his previous allies.  The Left will take what he can give them but always view him with ambivalence.   

The composition of the Court also makes it impossible for Roberts to recover his previous position as a moderate Constitutionalist.  There are four Liberal votes on the Court who vote as a bloc on important issues that divide Conservatives and Liberals.  Roberts can guarantee a Liberal majority in these cases, but can’t reliably deliver a Conservative one.  By crossing enemy lines,  he may have no choice but to join their side wholeheartedly if he wishes to leave any legacy except that of a failed traitor.  

We may, unfortunately, have to live with that.

UPDATE:  Ann Coulter warned us about Roberts in 2005.

"After pretending to consider various women and minorities for the Supreme Court these past few weeks, President Bush decided to disappoint all the groups he had just ginned up and nominate a white male.

So all we know about him for sure is that he can't dance and he probably doesn't know who Jay-Z is. Other than that, he is a blank slate. Tabula rasa. Big zippo. Nada. Oh, yeah ... We also know he's argued cases before the Supreme Court. Big deal; so has Larry Flynt's attorney.

But unfortunately, other than that that, we don't know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever.

Since the announcement, court-watchers have been like the old Kremlinologists from Soviet days looking for clues as to what kind of justice Roberts will be. Will he let us vote?

Does he live in a small, rough-hewn cabin in the woods of New Hampshire and avoid "womenfolk"?
Does he trust democracy? Or will he make all the important decisions for us and call them "constitutional rights"?

It means absolutely nothing that NARAL and Planned Parenthood attack him: They also attacked Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Hackett Souter."

 Coulter stressed the historical problem with whisking through these "blank slate" type "stealth" nominees. It appears in Roberts case, according to Coulter, that he was more career driven and wanted to be on the high court more than anything else. One of the ways he accomplished this, writes Coulter, was by keeping his personal opinions to himself throughout his career up until his confirmation.