Lots of media and academic theories are circulating about what's going on at the just-completed term of the Supreme Court, under the lengthening leadership tenure of Chief Justice John Roberts. Many interpretations take the standard route of a horizontal scan across a spectrum of well-worn labels. There are the inevitable surprises, as jurists are not as predictable as some would like and they often privately rebel against pigeonholing.

The pretentious labeling and would-be prophetic slotting that goes on often mislead by proffering binary choices of liberal-conservative or right-center-left coalitions and swings of voting patterns. An alternative look from a vertical angle may provide a clearer and more reliable insight by examining Chief Justice Roberts' institutional leadership role—not his individual votes in separate or collated appeals.

Think of it this way. His own oft-repeated baseball analogy about being a mere umpire is a modest starting point. Taking his analogy up a notch or two to the major leagues finds him as the team manager (Chief Justice) and a player, too, (perhaps, the pitcher), not just a sidelines umpire. To be sure, his individual vote is first among equal leverage in deciding the appeals, but it is his opinion-writing assignment power and institutional leadership role that mold, model and shape the collective, collegial work of the body. That, I intuit, tells us something more important than picking through the tea leaves of individual or groups of appeals of the last term.

The "Chief" plainly has his eye on the biggest prize—the reputation and integrity (etymologically, the "whole of the thing") of the Institution. He nimbly balances the just resolution of individual appeals with the equally—if not greater—concern for his unique portfolio. That is the preservation of the institutional authority of the Supreme Court as a powerful, third-branch partner in governance, established firmly with bedrock foundation pillars by Chief Justice John Marshall.

The admiration of the present "Chief John" for his historically pre-eminent "Founder Chief John" is well-documented. Indeed, a recent biographer, Joan Biskupic, discloses the delightful tidbit that when John Roberts, Esq. argued appeals at the Supreme Court as a private lawyer, he had a habit of stopping by and touching with respect (and perhaps for luck?) the bronze statue of the "Blueprint Builder" of that tribunal's independent authority for separately balanced governance of the nation. ("The Chief: The Life and Turbulent Times of Chief Justice John Roberts" [Basic Books, New York, 2019]) That historical perspective surely inspires and motivates the modern successor to serve as guardian of Marshall's institution-first legacy. (See, "Guardian of the Institution" - NYS Bar Journal Dec 2019, Vol. 91, No. 9, pp. 44-47, review by Joseph W. Bellacosa).

The chief justice may thus be seen as supremely focused on that cardinal virtue and objective—protecting and preserving the institutional integrity of the whole (that etymologically apt word again). He works behind the scenes (the preferred setting for the least ostentatious and bombastic branch of government) to push back against ideological pulls and pushes from within and from those without among the commentariat (media, academy and politicians alike). They float their distracting balloons that, if heeded, would divert disciplined—even driven—attentiveness from that foremost and principal responsibility of the Chief.

In sum, the vertical interpretation of what is going on up top in this last term of the Supreme Court—and for the foreseeable future—provides a more reliable picture than the predictable glance only sideways and horizontally.

Judge Joseph W. Bellacosa served on the New York State Court of Appeals from 1987 to 1999.