Bill Blum at TruthDig provides important background on John G. Roberts' role in "winning" the Bush v. Gore case for Bush:
http://tinyurl.com/....
In short, Roberts was not only a senior adviser to Jeb Bush during the Florida recount but also coached the Bush legal team in presenting their case to the Supreme Court. Somehow, though one Democrat gently questioned Roberts about his opinion on the Supreme Court's decision to take the recount case under review, and allowed Roberts not to answer in any important way, no Senate Democrats brought up and questioned Roberts' role in actively working for the man who became President George W. Bush, who had nominated Roberts to the Supreme Court.
How could Democrats, Blum asks, allow a principal driver of the legal strategy that resulted in the Supreme Court stealing the 2000 election on behalf of Republicans to go through a confirmation hearing on his nomination to the Supreme Court, by the very president who benefited from Bush v. Gore, without a thorough examination of his involvement in Bush v. Gore, especially as it pertains to Roberts' outlook on his role as a Supreme Court Justice.
(More after jump.)
In any case, Roberts is now the Chief Justice of the United States, holding the deciding vote in an act of judicial review on a case (King) that will decide the fate of an fundamental piece of the Affordable Care Act; a review that legal scholars view as extremely unusual considering the pending appeal in the DC circuit court on a similar case.
I had been cautiously optimistic in Armando's diary on a way Roberts could express sympathy with the conservative legal community while upholding the federal subsidies for states that did not set-up their own insurance exchanges.
Now I very much doubt that an aggressive advocate for Bush during Bush v. Gore, who has already joined absurdly illogical and very partisan decisions on the Voting Rights Act, would have integrity, as the most powerful justice in the country and in this case, to judge on the merits.