Ah, yes, the Bush family's gift to 'active measures' racism and genocide of humanity......Chief Justice Roberts.
Three years ago, Roberts was on the OTHER side of a near-identical case. The decision went against Roberts' position, 6-3.
So this time, Roberts contradicted his previous position 'to preserve stare decisis.'
Roberts becomes Groucho Marx: "These are my principles and if you don't like them, well, I have others!"
1 comment:
Per usual, you need an education on the topic at hand.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/what-john-robertss-surprise-abortion-rights-ruling-means-for-the-future-of-roe-v-wade
That’s the challenge for abortion opponents. Roberts is clearly an abortion-rights skeptic, as he made apparent today, but he also has an investment in precedent. And to your point, Roe and Casey are precedents, too. I think the most obvious strategy, if you are an abortion opponent, is to gut abortion rights without gutting abortion precedents. In other words, to say that women still have a right to an abortion but to functionally eliminate access to abortion. That is much more likely. There is nothing stopping someone like Roberts from doing that, and I think, if anything, the tools for doing that are already present in Casey and the decisions following it.
Speaking of SCOTUS, Trump blew it on this case.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/roberts-rules-trump-out-order/613252/
Roberts, as in previous cases, rejected out of hand the notion that the DACA repeal was motivated by animus, dismissing the president’s numerous derogatory statements about immigrants as “remote in time and made in unrelated contexts.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor retorted in a separate and individual concurrence, “I would not so readily dismiss the allegation that an executive decision disproportionately harms the same racial group that the President branded as less desirable mere months earlier.” Roberts’s decision does not voice opposition to prejudice, the harm the Trump administration’s decision would cause, or DACA’s repeal itself. Rather, he wrote that the Trump administration simply did not do the minimum amount of work required to implement its desired policy.
Post a Comment