A decade ago during his Senate confirmation hearings, Chief Justice John Roberts famously dismissed thoughts about whether he’d be an activist judge who bends the law to meet an agenda, comparing himself instead to a baseball umpire who calls balls and strikes.
Elizabeth G. Taylor, executive director of the National Health Law Program, adds that Roberts likely didn’t want to be the judge who gutted a law that gave millions of people access to health care – some for the first time in their lives. It’s also “significant,” she says, that Roberts seemed to consider studies confirming the “real world impact” of the decision before making up his mind.
“It just reinforces the point that justices are human and they read the papers and they were aware that there was no backup plan if they struck down the exchanges,” Taylor says. Read the full article here. »