Replies

Based on what we knew about Roberts in 2005, it should have been crystal clear he'd vote to overturn Roe. His judicial views on abortion were unknown, but the guy was a pretty solid Rehnquist clerk, devout church-going Roman Catholic (sure, there are some weekly mass attending white Catholics who support abortion, but its pretty rare) and his wife was a card-carrying member of a pro-life organization, for crying out loud! John Roberts 2020 is significantly to the LEFT of John Roberts 2005 (and sadly, seems to be moving increasingly leftward every day), so that's why I say "iffy" at this point. As nickcarraway notes, Roberts tends to go traitor on some BIG "landmark" cases where the liberals have the votes to establish some NEW socialist "precedent" (Roberts wants to be on the "winning" side and assign or write the opinion himself... I think its vanity), but he still votes mostly conservative when the outcome of the case won't change things. He is nowhere near as "liberal" as many FReepers seem to see him as, and he is not on the level of Souter or Stevens. So I could see Roberts staying in the minority for a decision affirming Roe still stands. He did so in a similar case 5-4 where Gorsuch joined the commie side.

Gorsuch's background was the opposite. He is simply NOT a social conservative. Period. His insane SJW feminazi pastor has rotted that guy's brain, much the same way that Obama's race-based social justice politics were influenced by Jermimah "God Damn America" Wright's beliefs, no matter how much Obama argued otherwise. Gorsuch won't vote to overturn Roe because he AGREES with basic gist of it. Again, he is a Sandra Day O'Connor type justice and WILL vote to overturn some bad left-wing precedents, and will probably vote the way we want 70-80% of the time. But you can forget about Gorsuch being on "our side" on issues like abortion or "rights" for homos & transgender freaks.

Kavanaugh... certainly not in the same ballpark as Gorsuch on social issues. He's voted better than Gorsuch OR Roberts on a number of notable cases. But I am confident he is a "no" vote on overturning Roe for an entirely different reason: he is a "Don't rock the boat" type status quo conservative, who said over and over again during his confirmation hearings that is EXTREMELY hesitant to overturn ANY Supreme Court decision that has been entrenched in society for decades, even if he personally dislikes it and wouldn't have established that "right" in the first place. He flat out SAID he wouldn't overturn Roe. The RINO from Maine believed him and voted to confirm him for that exact reason. Kav probably thinks Roe was a bad precedent but overturning it at THIS time would damage the judiciary's credibility and reduce them to flip-flopping for purely partisan reasons and would result in chaos in American culture and law if it were suddenly and abruptly struck down completely, and blah blah blah. He'd probably write some useless "concurrence' saying Roe is bad law but he's not overturning it because it needs to be "corrected" by lawmakers, and blah blah blah... some lofty puff piece that will accomplish jack squat for our side, but it will SOUND like a very scholarly "conservative" argument.

I think Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will end up about where Kennedy was, maybe a little to the left as time goes on. But I doubt we'll ever actually have a new Roe case, so I'm not sure we'll see how they actually vote on that.

If it were today, I think Alito and Thomas would vote to overturn. Probably Barrett, but you really can't be sure yet. And maybe Roberts.

All that adds up to what I said about Trump doing more to vet these guys ahead of time. There are ways and not all that difficult - but Trump doesn’t have a law background so it might be harder for him but I still think he could do it.

Trump tends to take his business trust and loyalty and transfer it into government. Can’t do that. Government is cut-throat and you’ve gotta be unflinching in finding about about people’s character.

Also as I said, it would help if he had better advisors.