I don't think we must lay too much emphasis on writing the majority opinion. After all, the majority opinion is something that needs concurrence from everyone w

I don't think we must lay too much emphasis on writing the majority opinion. After all, the majority opinion is something that needs concurrence from everyone who is voting with it. Given that the Justices could have their majority without John Roberts, his influence in shaping the final outcome is limited. Perhaps the other Justices will ache for the credibility gained with John Roberts being on their side and will thus agree to a narrowly worded opinion written by him -- it is a tantalizing possibility that you suggest. But I think John Roberts being the leader of the institution might be keen to be on the "right side of history" on any highly controversial social issue and might just vote on the merits of the matter (as he sees it) -- even if that means he would be in the minority. The phrase "right side of history" is difficult to explain but America should see what the rest of the world has decided regarding Women's reproductive rights. The trend seems to indicate that the direction of travel in America is against the rest of the world (developed and developing). This fact might be on Robert's mind as he decides what is the "right side of history." --- P.S. > you say, he will keep the opinion narrow BTW I don't think I implied that anywhere in my response. I didn't express my opinion on what Robert's opinion might be _if_ he wrote the majority. Rather, I was generally saying that he would vote to preserve the status quo. The possibility to be able to write the majority opinion (and thus vote with the conservatives) option is definitely intriguing and was mentioned by you...