Abstract
As we head towards another presidential election, it would be important for us not to lose sight of major decisions made by the Supreme Court in the last few years during the second Obama administration. And this is not the obvious thing that comes to mind during these highly energized times: namely with a new president comes the power to appoint Supreme Court justices. Politics and law strive to be inseparable when few believe that is ever possible despite what legal theorists and scholars say is a clear separation between legal reasoning and political rhetoric: the law has to maintain the artifice of self-reference, or referring to past precedents or 'tradition'; procedural, or accountable to devices, techniques, principles and rules specific to the legal world, for example stare decisis; and non-committal when it comes to the moral and political implications of a decision. For example upholding the Affordable Care Act that legalized universal healthcare in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebilius did not indicate concern with the moral question of whether universal healthcare for all is a natural, God-given right. As a matter of fact the normally perceived conservative Chief Justice Roberts swung towards the liberals in a 5-4 vote that many could not predict. The legal judgement of the Court must transcend the whim and emotions of social debate on any given political topic and justify itself as constitutionally valid when interpreting current laws, overturning them or validating the creation of new laws.