Well said. All this hysteria about conspiracies and secession and other nonsense. Roberts said before that the court is not a fix for bad legislation, elections are.
Now, we happen to be doubly screwed because the Republicans we elect are losers of the first order, but this law IN ITS ENTIRETY can be wiped out by electing a President and Congress that wants it gone. Plain and simple. The court shouldn’t save us from shitty electoral outcomes. Sometimes the country has to suffer for their decisions.
And in this case, he fixed bad legislation. He's inconsistent. He can afford to be. He's not elected, and there is zero probability of him being removed.
“this law IN ITS ENTIRETY can be wiped out by electing a President and Congress that wants it gone...”
Well, that ain’t gonna happen. Maybe we can get a President. Longshot, but maybe.
Congress? Forget about it. We’ve been trying that angle for 20 years now, it doesn’t matter how many “conservatives” we elect, they just go to Washington and then whore themselves out and accomplish nothing for us.
Maybe this is some weakness inherent in Conservatism? The Marxist ideologues seem loyal to the death. Conservatives whore themselves out at the first opportunity.
You are so correct, this would not have wiped out the law and really it does not make it much less tenable.
I guess I would add two more points. Roberts may well have joined the majority to assign himself the opinion to try to make it ad hoc to this case rather than a general precedent that the court can try to fix bad language in a law. That is had it been 4-4 without him Roberts might well have voted with the other side.
Voting with the majority also gets him a less divided appearing court, ie 6-3 v. 5-4. I think he wants the court to appear less political. The problem is that he has 4 votes left political votes he can do little about.