Chief Justice John Roberts and President Obama are set for a Washington duel, as the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on Obama's health care reform law next week.

I don't mean literally, like Aaron Burr's cutting down rival Alexander Hamilton in 1804. But I do mean a showdown. The Supreme Court's decorum hides the reality that all five Republican appointees — even the affable Roberts — are a tough crowd.

The main narrative casts Justice Anthony Kennedy as a mysterious moderate, upon whom much depends. The story's spun as if Obama's Affordable Care Act has a fighting chance.

Come June, when the decision lands, Roberts will likely prevail by a heartbeat. The president's landmark in social progress will probably be denied by five men in black robes. May it please the Court to prove me wrong.

Since 2000, when vote-counting was stopped cold in the cliffhanger Bush v. Gore, that's the way of the world. With the late William Rehnquist as chief justice, the court took the nation down a tragic turn and placed the war-fighting George W. Bush in office by one vote. Kennedy still has the stain on his hand.

Call it the Rehnquist-Roberts Court, since Roberts, confirmed in 2005, learned lessons well from Rehnquist as his star law clerk. Functionally, the two are as one. To wit, Roberts worked on the Bush side as a lawyer. As Bush's nominee for chief justice, he told the Senate he'd be a modest umpire — far from the way he's actually played the game.

Twelve years into the 21st century, pretty much a flop so far, the Supreme Court is like a wrecking ball (thank you, Bruce Springsteen) to the people's voices and votes, as expressed in elections.

The Court's supreme disregard for democratic process showed up recently in Citizens United v. FEC, which muddied 2012 election waters with unlimited anonymous contributions from corporate donors. In a startling ruling, the court decided corporations are the same as people, with political rights. Sens. John McCain and Russell Feingold, who labored uphill to pass campaign finance reform, saw their bipartisan bill crumble.

The court lowered the sacred wall of separation between church and state — by relaxing employment standards for religious workplaces. Roberts is Catholic, as are several colleagues. Whatever the reason, Rome is coming closer to home.

The rock-bottom chief justice, Roger Taney ("taw-ny"), was a Maryland Catholic slaveowner. His name is on the bitter Dred Scott decision, which decreed black people, free or enslaved, had no human rights that white people had to respect. Nor could they become citizens. The Civil War broke out shortly after; Taney helped tear antebellum America in two.

Another Supreme Court decision on race, Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, legalized segregation. We know the meaning of "separate but equal," which the Court bequeathed to the South for roughly half a century.

In a chilling moment of truth, The New York Times noted, Supreme Court clerk William Rehnquist confessed in a memo to his boss in 1952:

"I realize it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position ... but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right."

Rarely do dots connect so cleanly. Rehnquist and Roberts can trace their trail of influence to 1896, maybe farther, in the way violinists trace their teachers back to Beethoven.

The Supreme Court, led by Earl Warren, struck down segregation in 1954. Separate but equal was no more. The enlightened case: Brown v. Board of Education. Against young Rehnquist's wishes, the Warren Court gave society a sense of rowing in the right direction, to a more perfect union.

In the Roberts era, we can't say the same. But June springs eternal.

To find out more about Jamie Stiehm, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.