Roberts actually directly referenced a recent very similar case that the SC ruled the abortion restrictions creating an undue burden were unconstitutional. On that case he dissented, but in his concurring opinion on this case he says that it is now the court’s responsibility to uphold precedent even though he still personally disagrees with it. So in this case, he actually came out and said that he chose the integrity of the court and judicial precedent over his ideological views. I do agree in general that people often try to find an ideological or political explanation for every SC justice’s vote on every high-profile case even though many are actually governed by jurisprudence and not politics (and in reality no one really knows where the line is drawn unless they’re nice enough to give the kind of explanation Roberts just gave).
My understanding is that Roberts decided to respect the concept of stare decisis today. This of course is not a new concept, and Roberts was perfectly justified in doing so, and I do not think it had anything to do with the fact that were are in a “tumultuous time of coronavirus and racial strife under the presidency of Donald Trump this election year”, as the writer suggests. Yes, it might turn out that his decision results in a more respected court, but this was not his motive in doing so, per se. It just might turn out that way.
We might be pardoned for thinking that John Roberts ruled as he did on some recent ‘culture wars’ issues as cover for the far-right, Constitution-be-damned rulings that he’s determined to make.
The truth is, with this SCOTUS, you get a mix of rulings, like any other. But like sports fans and refs, you have one side convinced that the refs are out to get their team.