The hallmark of a truly impactful Supreme Court decision is its enduring relevance. Every time I revisit the opinion, I discover new insights and gain a deeper understanding of our Constitution. When I delve into cases like Marbury or McCulloch each semester, I find myself learning something new with each reading.
On the other hand, Chief Justice Roberts’ opinions have a different impact. They may seem convincing at first read, with his analysis appearing as the definitive and only logical conclusion, dismissing any opposing viewpoints as invalid. However, upon closer examination during subsequent readings, the façade begins to fade. It becomes apparent that John Roberts is not just a judge, but also an advocate shaping the Court to his own vision of what it should be. The rhetoric of “institutionalism” serves as a mirror reflecting Roberts’ personal ideals for the Court’s identity.
When I analyzed Loper Bright, I was initially impressed by the concise and persuasive argument presented within its 30 pages. Roberts effectively maintained the Court’s unity, preventing potential dissent. Even Justice Barrett, known for her independent views, seemed influenced by the Chief Justice’s compelling opinion. However, upon further reflection, I began to question why Barrett did not express her own perspective, considering the implications of her recent opinions in light of the Loper Bright decision.
As I pondered over the Loper Bright majority opinion, I started to notice its shortcomings. Despite this, Roberts’ writing style remains captivating. One particular sentence stood out to me: “For any landlubbers, ‘F/V’ is simply the designation for a fishing vessel.”
Reflecting on the intricacies of judicial decisions, it becomes evident that true understanding requires multiple readings and critical analysis beyond the initial impression.
