Question

Copyright Jeffrey Rosen. This article originally appeared in The New Republic and is reprinted by permission.

Consider the source and the audience: Jeffrey Rosen is a law professor at Georgetown University who
supported the nomination of John Roberts as chief justice. He is writing in The New Republic, a
-longstanding center-left journal about politics. How are Rosen's own views reflected in this article?
Lay out the argument and the underlying values and assumptions: This article is about Chief Justice
Roberts's efforts to be a "successful" chief justice. How do Roberts-and Rosen-define "success" in this
context? How is it related to "institutional legitimacy"? And what does Rosen mean that the Court is now "the
Roberts Court"?
Uncover the evidence: Rosen bases his insights into Roberts's thinking on his own interviews of Roberts,
as well as his analysis of what Roberts argued in the health care case. Is that persuasive to you?
Evaluate the conclusion: Rosen argues that Roberts has used a "twistification" to get his way in the long
run (reduced powers for Congress) while avoiding to seem like a partisan in the short run. Liberal critics like
the short-term result but fear the long-term result. Conservative critics have the opposite view. Did Roberts's
"nonpartisan" solution avoid politics?
Sort out the political significance: Roberts's decision here certainly sidestepped the kind of political
controversy the Court generated when it decided Bush v. Gore in 2000 (see What's at Stake... ?). Is
avoiding that kind of dramatic taking-of-sides all that is necessary to restore "faith in the neutrality of the law
and the impartiality of judges"?

Answer 1

Jeffrey Rosen's views are reflected in this article as he argues in favor of Chief Justice Roberts and his efforts to be a "successful" chief justice. Rosen defines success as achieving institutional legitimacy, which means that the Court is seen as nonpartisan and impartial. Rosen believes that Roberts is trying to achieve this by reducing the power of Congress while avoiding being seen as a partisan. The article is based on Rosen's interviews with Roberts and his analysis of the health care case. It's up to the reader to decide whether this evidence is persuasive. Rosen argues that Roberts's nonpartisan solution did avoid politics, but critics have different views on the short-term and long-term effects of his decision. Roberts's decision did avoid political controversy, but it's unclear whether that's enough to restore faith in the neutrality of the law and the impartiality of judges.