I supported Roberts as a nominee. I’m not happy with how it has turned out, but there was nothing in his record that would predict how he has voted. That happens.
I suspect Roberts is better than Trump’s sister, though...
“Trump was asked for his Supreme Court picks and said, “I have a sister who’s on the court of appeals, and she’s fantastic.”
Halperin asks, “Would she be a good Supreme Court justice?”
“Oh, I think she’d be phenomenal, she’d be one of the best,” Trump said.
He went on to say that would have to be ruled out “at least temporarily,” but did not explain why she would have to be ruled out or why he might rule her out only temporarily.
In his book on the culture of death (p. 59) National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru has written about Berry and her extreme support for partial-birth abortion. At NRO’s The Corner he noted:
She called a New Jersey law against it a “desperate attempt” to undermine Roe v. Wade. It was, she wrote, “based on semantic machinations, irrational line-drawing, and an obvious attempt to inflame public opinion instead of logic or medical evidence.” It made no difference where the fetus was when it “expired.”
So, Trump’s sister does not see a partially delivered newborn as worthy of legal protections, and yet he thinks she would make a “fantastic” and “phenomenal” Supreme Court justice.”
https://stream.org/donald-trump-pro-abortion-sister-phenomenal-supreme-court-justice/
So: The right of abortionists to make a child “expire” by partially extracting her from the womb, sticking scissors in the back of her head, vacuuming out her brain, and crushing her skull to complete her extraction, is right there in the Constitution. But let’s please not have any “semantic machinations.”
Have a look at 67 in this thread. Not everyone was fooled by John Roberts.