[Macho MAGA Man]

The usual suspect strikes again siding with the liberal justices.

[Col Frank Slade]

Hardly surprising..

[Kevmo]

The man was pretending to be what he wasn’t; he’s a snake.

[Howie66]

Anybody who thinks that Roberts is a Constitutional Originalist is sorely mistaken. He is as Corrupt and Soulless as can be.

[WMarshal]

Roberts is just another leftist BushBot.

[Lurkinanloomin]

The Bush gift that keeps on giving.....

[WellyP]

I strongly feel Roberts is hiding something or the LIBS are holding something over his head.... blackmail!

[Flick Lives]

According to the report Chief Justice John Roberts sided with Democrats in the decision.

—

When *hasn’t* he sided with the leftists?

[Leaning Right]

> The usual suspect strikes again siding with the liberal justices. <

Yep. Roberts was appointed by George W. Bush. It’s just more evidence of how terrible a president Bush was.

[kenmcg]

What if the leaker is a Justice of the Supreme Court?

[imabadboy99]

That would actually be great because then he won’t get a chance to water down the opinion.

[rightwingcrazy]

“Chief Justice Roberts Reportedly Joined Liberal Justices in Abortion Ruling”

I wouldn’t have guessed that, except when I wasn’t abed asleep. Good morning.

[Hattie]

I doubt it was a clerk; my guess a Justice exposure.

[FlipWilson]

First off, I believe this to be a well coordinated elaborate hoax aimed at giving the Dems an issue to try and save them.

Assuming it is not, don’t think k for a second that Roberts would not have leaked this himself.

[freedomjusticeruleoflaw]

He is compromised.

[Chauncey Gardiner]

First guess was Roberts. The pre-printed signs and protesters immediately following was just too coincidental and orchestrated.

[jpsb]

I remember hordes of Freepers blasting Amy Barrett as “not a real conservative” while I tried to defend her. I expect them to apologize. Without Barrett this would have gone the other way.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

This is not the first Supreme Court leak in its history. There is an interesting thread on the history of leaks in the Supreme Court by law professor Jonathan Peters on Twitter. The leaks included a couple regarding the original Roe v. Wade decision.

I'm not excusing what happened here, of course, but just saying that this behavior is hardly unprecedented.

https://twitter.com/jonathanwpeters/status/1521309806430236672

[throwthebumsout]

If true, this demonstrates how critical Trump’s appointments were.

[TexasFreeper2009]

actually there is an underlying case here that Roberts would be in agreement with. So it would be 6 to 3 to let the law in “Mississipi?” stand that limits abortions after a certain number of weeks, but then he would separately disagree with overturning Roe.

[Sacajaweau]

This may be fake news...in fact...I’m betting it is