The Roberts Court Is Not The Prosser Court

An early thought on the US Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling today upholding the Affordable Health Care Act, with Chief Justice John Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee, providing the key fifth vote:

Roberts saved the Court from a damaging partisan, ideological stain had the decision been 5-4 the opposite way, with Roberts joining the other conservatives and serving up, in an election year, another routine, rightist, pro-Republican reflex.

What Roberts did was more than affirm Pres. Obama's signature piece of legislation. Roberts proved the Court can break out of a rigid ultra-conservative template that produced Citizens United, for example, or that lined up 5-4 to validate Bush's win over Al Gore.

So now we have a less predictable, more open-minded US Supreme Court.

This is what we do not have in Madison, where the Wisconsin Supreme Court has lapsed into partisan and ideological predictability.

Everyone knew that there would be a 4-3 vote to allow Walker's anti-union Act 10 to become law - - where David Prosser delivered the majority, GOP-serving decision and thus reinforced the court's current ideological reputation.

An appearance that seems headed for more validation as the court is headed towards a procedural move - - multiple recusals - - that could allow Prosser to avoid a hearing on pending ethics complaints arising from an alleged altercation with Justice Bradley as the Act 10 ruling was being considered.

Chief Justice Rpberts in Washington has stepped forward as the Chief Conciliator: in Madison, whom among Prosser, Roggensack, Ziegler and Gableman - - a group that owes its allegiance to the WMC - - is willing to play that role?