Anderson noted that Chief Justice Roberts roughed up a lawyer from the solicitor General’s office for describing a changed position by the Secretary of Labor; he was annoyed that the SG didn’t explicitly state that the change was due to a change of administrations. Anderson linked an article that further explains what the Chief Justice is up to, quoting an earlier argument where Justice Scalia had jumped the SG over a similar change of position:
“Your successors may adopt a different view,” he then told Verrilli. “Justice Scalia’s point means whatever deference you are entitled to is compromised by the fact that your predecessors took a different position.”
In other words, he’s asserting his ability to cease respecting the solicitor general’s points of view to the extent they represent the views of a new administration.
I have $30 that says Roberts doesn’t ask questions like this next time the White House changes parties.