Posted on 03/04/2020 8:35:51 AM PST by NRx
Chief Justice John Roberts left open the possibility that he could side with the Supreme Court’s liberal wing during intensive, fact-based arguments on Wednesday in a high-profile abortion case.
A vote with the court’s four liberal justices to strike down a Louisiana law regulating abortion providers would be a dramatic turnaround for the chief justice, who joined a dissenting opinion from the court’s decision upholding a similar law in Texas just four years ago.
But Roberts suggested that he saw that decision as binding, which found that the Texas law had no medical benefits and placed an unconstitutional burden on women seeking abortion. Roberts twice said that the medical benefits for the Louisiana law would likely be the same.
Roberts sided with the court’s liberal members — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor — one year ago to halt the Louisiana law from going into affect while its challengers pursued their appeal.
The case was the first substantial abortion dispute to come before the top court since the confirmation of President Donald Trump’s two appointees, Justice Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
It marks a significant test of how the court’s new conservative majority will treat laws concerning abortion. How the court ultimately comes down could have an impact on the next presidential election, in a race in which Trump has boasted of his impact on the federal judiciary and sought to develop conservative credentials on abortion.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
Roberts will go down in infamy, just like Souter.
Two dishonorable men who lied their sorry @sses off to be nominated to the USSC as conservatives, then when they got there they turned around and royally screwed every one who took them at their word.
More likely they never were conservative and that is why Bush Sr. and Jr. picked them. There’s a pattern here, unfortunately.
In general, you can’t much tell what a Justice is thinking based on the questions they ask. They often asked questions that test others thinking as opposed to signaling their own.
Another Trump appointment really makes Roberts a non-factor, two and he’s just holding a seat.
Doubtful. The Trump appointees-McConnell confirmees will just trade votes in support of the solid Democrat wing and the tilt of SCOTUS will remain were it is now.
I’m sure you would have preferred a “pure” dissent though, because you clearly are so intelligent about the inner workings of the court.
A pure dissent? You mean like Graham voting for McMullin and therefore greasing the wheels for a Hillary SCOTUS? That kind of “purity”?
Trump’s picks look good so far (Gorsuch-great; Kavanaugh-should be OK generally). He’ll have at least two more (Ginsberg; Thomas) and he simply cannot make a mistake when Justice Thomas retires!
it wasnt just a signal-—it was the bat signal from his masters obama and soros.
Cannot count on “Federalist Society” jurist as judges.
I know several who are as left as can be, and simply members for political reasons, and prestige.
I also know senate staffers who have made recommendations of some and these, which have been placed as judges through McConnels efforts, just because they were “Federalists” members, and shook hands.
This has happened, and is happening right now, under President Trump!
No, more like Reagan’s “take your 80% loaf now and then get the 20% later” rather than giving up 100% of the loaf to the other side because you are mad you can’t get it all now.
Scalia would have happily written a better Heller. Kennedy screwed us.
Who said Roberts is conservative?
Thanks, W.
This appears to be wishful thinking by CNBC. The folks at SCOTUSblog are quite liberal, and they are quick to pounce at any hopes that the Supreme Court’s liberals will carry the day, but in Amy Howe’s analysis of the oral arguments she does not mention Roberts having hinted at siding with the liberals. The only thing she said about Roberts (apart from her remark that Roberts and Kavanaugh are the biggest question marks on this case) is that he seemed to be looking for some sunlight between the LA situation and the TX situation from a few years ago, which implied that he was trying to find a way to uphold the LA law without having to overrule a recent SCOTUS precedent. See: https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/03/argument-analysis-justices-grapple-with-louisiana-abortion-law/#more-292292
>> this is media/Comcast
Exactly
Sending a signal like the way he walks or waves or throws a ball?
How many hospitals in the USA are faith based & supported by one church or another?
Will Roberts tell these hospitals that they MUST provide doctors with ‘privileges’ to perform abortions?
How many more blows must these hospitals absorb???
You nailed it. SCOTUSBlog are far-left activists, and they spin everything they can from the perspective of judicial activism. Even they couldn’t really paint the sunshine and rainbows perspective that the Comcast headline writer used.
I spoke with an attorney who worked on one of the amicus briefs in this case urging the Court to overturn Roe. He thinks that there are 5 votes to uphold the law, although he doesn’t think that they will overturn Roe.
He felt like Roberts was looking at a way to distinguish Whole Women’s Health from the Louisiana law.
Robert’s needs to spend time with his family.
________________________
A Bum Bandit ............
where in the Constitution is it stated that this an issue delegated to the Federal Gov’t?
Chief Justice Roberts is an “Ashwander judge,” always bending over backwards to try to decide cases without having to overturn precedent. Sadly, he might be a solid sixth vote to overturn Roe, but he’s unlikely to jump in and be seen as the deciding vote. This is one of many reasons why it’s imperative that President Trump is reelected and gets to appoint Justice Ginsburg’s successor.
Apparently so
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.