1. Right now, given that the Court has issued its binding Opinion, the most important issue in all of this is that there may be one or more "leakers" in the SCOTUS. This could be disastrous as there are strong rules and customs of great magnitude, which are supposed to allow the Justices the freedom to speak and think openly, without outside criticism.
2. Any justice who voted for or against the mandate for any reason other than its "constitutionality" would be "legislating from the bench". Some times people think its good. Other times the same people think its bad. I think it has more to do with how the individual(s) feel about the ultimate decision and its impact. And, I just do not think it is possible to completely avoid or prohibit this- it is simply part of being human and human nature.
3. Roberts has absolutely nothing to gain from currying public favor. He has been appointed to the highest judicial position in the land for the rest of his life.
4. Every single case the SCOTUS takes up is re-considered from the perspective that the SCOTUS can do whatever it wants within the boundaries of the case and the law. It is not restricted to the issues the parties or the attorneys address or what the lower court(s) has/have decided. If, while looking at the case on appeal, the Justices see an issue of fact or law of concern, even if no one else realized it before the Court did, the SCOTUS is empowered to act as it sees fit. The fact that there are nine Justices tends to keep this on "even keel", where the Court only deviates under unique circumstances. Here, for better or for worse, the Court denounced institution of the plan under the "Commerce Clause", but found it constitutional under the "Tax Clause". Quite simply, this is how the Court works.
5. Lawrence Tribe, one of- if not the foremost authority on the U.S. Constitution- was one of Roberts' Law professors many years ago. During that time, Tribe was exploring and writing at length about the history and development of the "Tax Clause". Roberts was his assistant...
6. The history and nature of the court (and most juries) is a free-flowing "discussion/debate" with Justices swaying one another back and forth until all discussion about the case is exhausted. Then and only then is a final decision made by each Justice and the author of the Court's soon coming Opinion is appointed.
Hope this helps from bit from a historical perspective...
rfenst wrote:
