“Roberts ruling indicates that he is in fact a statist”
Spirited: Perhaps. But another view holds that Roberts ruling was totally out of character; an abrupt breaking of all that he stands for due to capitulation to threats, thuggery of the worst sort.
Not but two weeks ago Human Events reported a calculated smear campaign against Roberts.
Only creepy, oily low-life characters, Big Liars, would intentionally destroy the good name of another. And in an age where most Americans are themselves morally deficient if not degenerate, the very worst of our kind, Big Liars, et al, feel free to transgress at will, meaning Roberts would have something to truly fear-—falling victim to the conscienceless character assassination goons who have destroyed the good names and reputations of many decent men in recent years.
With regard to Roberts and his strange out-of-character ruling, I find the threat scenario most plausible.
The ruling was not out of character because Roberts has stated that he has no judicial philosophy, which indicates that he does not hold the power of the judiciary to be co-equal with the state, but rather Roberts simply believes that the state is all powerful.
If Roberts was ever an originalist, he would have stated that his overall judicial philosophy was that of an originalist.