Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts had an interesting first year presiding over the highest court in the United States. Roberts and his colleagues started the 2005-2006 docket of cases by eschewing any controversial decisions and giving the illusion of unanimity. However, cases in the first six months of 2006 included dealing with the legality of holding suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, a case on how widely the Clean Water Act could be applied, and a case dealing with privacy rights. The power of the chief justice in the Supreme Court, especially with someone like John Roberts who has yet to show his approach to politics and law, is shown by the past year to be ceremonial at best.
The Supreme Court Chief Justice presides over deliberations and ceremonial functions involving the entire Court, but has little power to negotiate the court toward unanimity. Justices Antonin Scalia and John Paul Stevens provided vigorous opinions in Hamdan v. U.S., dealing with the legality of Guantanamo Bay. Stevens wrote the majority opinion which stated that the prison was unconstitutional, rebuffing an earlier district court decision by a pre-Court Roberts. In cases like Hudson v. Michigan or Ropanos v. U.S., the deciding justice was Justice Anthony Kennedy, a moderate known to provide concurring opinions that often bridge the gap between liberal and conservative-leaning justices. These cases do not include the possibility of future cases that feature pet issues for certain justices, such as freedom of speech issues for John Paul Stevens or affirmative action issues for Clarence Thomas. It is clear from these examples that John Roberts' influence is greatly exaggerated, at least within his first year as chief justice.
However, the next year of Supreme Court cases could be definitive for women's rights, electoral reform, and the environment. In one particular case down the road, the Court will have to decide whether North Dakota's ban on abortion is constitutional or legal while it is certain that they will have to address further the issue of electoral fraud in some form. The major question, however, is whether Roberts will defer to his more experienced colleagues to make the major decisions on these issues or if he will step up and make his approach to law more clear to the American public.
