The Chief

Why did Chief Justice John Roberts side with the four liberal justices on the Supreme Court and thereby uphold the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, more popularly known as Obamacare? It couldn't have been due to personal affection for President Obama, who voted against Roberts' confirmation as a Senator. There are four possible theories to account for the Chief's totally unexpected behavior :

1. His wife made him do it. This is not as crazy as it may sound. Every married man knows that on occasion a wife insists that her husband do something which he otherwise would not think to do. In this case, I believe Mrs. Roberts, and maybe even the Chief himself, have grown weary of attending Washington parties filled with boring, rich Republicans. As everyone knows, the Democrats are a lot more fun. They are funnier and a lot more entertaining when it comes time to kick back and have a good time. Antonin Scalia is one of the few Republicans who are genuinely funny, even if you don't agree with him. The list of entertaining Democrats, on the other hand, is endless. Think of Nora Ephron, for example, who just passed away. This move undoubtedly will give them entree and make their personal lives in Washington a lot more interesting.

2. As a student of history, the Chief knows that it is not enough to serve as the Chief Justice of the United States. To be remembered like John Marshall or Earl Warren, you need your name as author on a landmark ruling. This was the Chief's opportunity, and he seized it, thereby ensuring his enduring fame as upholder of vitally-needed legislation and the signature domestic achievement of the Obama Administration. This case will rank up there with timeless cases like Brown v. Board of Education.

3. Things at the Court were becoming too stale and predictable. The Supremes were looking like a five member majority predictably doing the bidding of the super-rich and conservative Republican elite. After Bush v. Gore and Citizens United, declaring Obamacare unconstitutional would be business as usual. The same situation occurred in the 1930's during FDR's Administration, when a bloc of conservative, reactionary justices routinely invalidated all New Deal legislation. In short, the Chief saw this case as a chance to demonstrate that the Court decides its cases on the merits and is nobody's rubber stamp. What a turnaround! What drama !

4. It was the right thing to do.

One of these theories is correct. I believe the Chief saved this legislation when a majority of the justices (including himself) believed the keystone individual mandate provision was unconstitutional, for the final reason listed above.