Roberts's Rules (pretty much explains his decision...)

The Atlantic ^ | January, 2007 | JEFFREY ROSEN

[nerdgirl]

Some of the least successful chief justices, Roberts suggested, had faltered because they misunderstood the job, approaching it as law professors rather than as leaders of a collegial Court. Harlan Fiske Stone, a former dean of Columbia Law School, was a case in point. Stone “was a failure as chief, because of his misperception of what a chief justice is supposed to be,” Roberts said, gesturing to the justices’ private conference room through an open door of his office. “It’s his desk out there that is separate from the conference table, and he … sat at his desk, and the others were at the table, and he almost called on them and critiqued their performances. They hated that.” Roberts laughed. “As a result, he was a failure as a chief justice.”

In Roberts’s view, the most successful chief justices help their colleagues speak with one voice. Unanimous, or nearly unanimous, decisions are hard to overturn and contribute to the stability of the law and the continuity of the Court; by contrast, closely divided, 5–4 decisions make it harder for the public to respect the Court as an impartial institution that transcends partisan politics.

[nerdgirl]

For anybody still wondering "WHY DID THIS MAN DO THIS!!!" This article from 2007 gives you all of the explanation you'll ever need. Like it or not, this is who Justice Roberts is, and always was. For better and for worse...

[tflabo]

misChief inJustice John Robs US.

[onedoug]

I sensed he was trouble when he bungled the Presidential Oath.