From this week's New Yorker: Jeffrey Toobin, "In the Balance," http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/03/in-the-balance -- "A liberal majority on the Court would present a particular dilemma for
the Chief Justice. Roberts’s voting pattern suggests that he would be a
frequent dissenter—which no Chief Justice has ever been. Feldman said, 'Roberts might have thirty more years in that job, and he might have it
with a liberal majority. Because his only real power is to assign
opinions when he is in the majority, he could actually wind up with no
power.' ... Kagan is trying to become
the internal playmaker, building coalitions that might achieve
majorities. 'In future years, if Ginsburg and Breyer are replaced by
Democratic appointees, Roberts could turn into the Chief Justice in name
while Kagan becomes the de-facto Chief Justice,' Feldman said. 'But, if
Roberts wants to stay the real Chief Justice, he might have to moderate
his views and join more often with the liberals. But would he want to
do that?"
From Mark Tushnet, In the Balance: Law and Politics on the Roberts Court (2013), p. xii -- "The future of the Court will be shaped not only by the nominations that President Obama and his successors will make, but by the competition between Roberts and Kagan for intellectual leadership of the Court, as each forcefully articulates differing views about the balance between law and politics. In the Balance suggests that we might find ourselves talking about a Court formally led by Chief Justice Roberts -- a 'Roberts Court' -- but led intellectually by Justice Kagan -- a 'Kagan Court.'"
Just sayin'. (I put the full link in this post because the print edition apparently gives the article a different title -- "The Supreme Court After Scalia.")
From Mark Tushnet, In the Balance: Law and Politics on the Roberts Court (2013), p. xii -- "The future of the Court will be shaped not only by the nominations that President Obama and his successors will make, but by the competition between Roberts and Kagan for intellectual leadership of the Court, as each forcefully articulates differing views about the balance between law and politics. In the Balance suggests that we might find ourselves talking about a Court formally led by Chief Justice Roberts -- a 'Roberts Court' -- but led intellectually by Justice Kagan -- a 'Kagan Court.'"
Just sayin'. (I put the full link in this post because the print edition apparently gives the article a different title -- "The Supreme Court After Scalia.")