Salute to U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts May 15, 2019

 "You go to the 9th Circuit and it's a disgrace," said President Donald Trump. "And I'm going to put in a major complaint because you cannot win — if you're us — a case in the 9th Circuit, and I think it's a disgrace. This was an Obama judge. And I'll tell you what, it won't happen like this anymore." President Trump, of course, is a Republican.

In a rare and pointed response, Chief Justice John Roberts replied:

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. The independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”

That was an unprecedented rebuke from Chief Justice Roberts, taking strong exception to President Trump’s implication that federal judges were partisan actors, referring to one as "an Obama judge" simply because the judge had ruled against Trump’s immigration agenda. For the record, Chief Justice Roberts himself was nominated by Republican President George W. Bush.

In the context of modern American jurisprudence, Chief Justice Roberts remains something of an enigma—unpredictable at times, and certainly not beholden to ideological expectations. One striking example: when many conservatives expected the Court to strike down the Affordable Care Act (commonly known as Obamacare), Roberts surprised everyone. He defied ideological pressure and upheld the law, effectively saving it.

What makes this especially interesting—and the motivation behind this essay—is a little-known fact: when John Roberts was nominated to the Supreme Court, then-Senator Barack Obama voted against his confirmation. Despite this, thanks to a Republican Senate majority, Roberts was confirmed, not just as an Associate Justice, but as Chief Justice.

Years later, Barack Obama became President. Given the tense political climate, many expected Chief Justice Roberts to "return the favour" when the Affordable Care Act was challenged in court. After all, Obamacare was President Obama’s signature legislative achievement, passed with narrow margins and over fierce Republican opposition.

Even before the ink had dried on the law, Republican opponents flooded the courts with legal challenges, often relying on questionable legal theories. Ironically, the philosophical foundation of the ACA had originated with a Republican governor, Mitt Romney, in Massachusetts. Still, the stakes were high, and many Americans, including myself, were anxious.

Given Senator Obama’s previous opposition to his confirmation, many believed that payback was inevitable. But when the moment of truth arrived, Chief Justice Roberts shocked observers once again. He not only voted to uphold the Affordable Care Act, but he also wrote the majority opinion himself. Conservative commentators cried foul, claiming that President Bush had nominated a "stealth liberal."

Undeterred, opponents challenged the law again. When the case returned to the Supreme Court, conservatives were confident that Roberts would now vote to overturn it and restore his conservative credentials. Again, they were wrong. Roberts stood firm and again voted to preserve the law.

And just last year, he delivered the now-famous statement defending the integrity and independence of the judiciary, pushing back against the idea that judges are mere political appointees serving their party’s interests.

Today, under Chief Justice Roberts' leadership, the U.S. Supreme Court has become harder to predict. Gone are the days of strict ideological forecasts. Legal scholars and pundits alike find themselves less certain of how the Court will rule on key issues.

And that, perhaps, is the highest compliment one can pay to a Chief Justice: that he values the rule of law above politics, and strives to ensure the judiciary remains a truly independent branch of government.