John Roberts joins liberal justices as Supreme Court blocks Louisiana abortion clinic law

Washington Times ^

[MNDude]

WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court stopped Louisiana from enforcing new regulations on abortion clinics in a test of the conservative court’s views on abortion rights.

The justices said by a 5-4 vote late Thursday that they will not allow the state to put into effect a law that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

[faucetman]

“Thomas Jefferson said in his letters that giving this office a life term is a great mistake. But there you are, this is why. They cannot be held accountable for misinterpreting the Constitution.”

The Constitution states that justices serve during good behavior, but they may be removed through impeachment.

[faucetman]

BULLSHIRT!

It has to be something MUCH WORSE than that!

[faucetman]

“JUSTICE THOMAS, JUSTICE ALITO, JUSTICE GORSUCH, and JUSTICE KAVANAUGH would deny the application.””

Roberts joined the LIBERALS! WHY?

Did JUSTICE THOMAS, JUSTICE ALITO, JUSTICE GORSUCH, and JUSTICE KAVANAUGH not understand?

[ladyjane]

I ran across this case that Roberts ruled on

https://www.firstmotherforum.com/2013/08/adoptive-father-john-roberts-not.html

Roberts failed to recuse himself from this case even though he himself is an adoptive father AND the lawyer for the birth mother is a former law clerk and close friend of his.

[CincyRichieRich]

We need to find the info that may be out there that has caused Roberts to be a turncoat. Expose it, and hopefully, if criminal, can be used to remove him from the bench and replaced by Trump!
...amen...can someone please contact Corey Digs?
Trump better win a second term!!!

[imardmd1]

Well, I agree about impeachment generally, but who is it to whom we give the task of determining how the Constitution is to be interpreted? Do you not see how unlikely it would be to indict some variable majority of the SC, each of whom may differ on the reason for making a particular decision? Remember, it is always the minority of the nine who would be misinterpreting some article of the Constitution, but are defeated by the majority.

[imardmd1]

All I knowmis that whatever the exact story is, it all revolves around the kids he adopted.

So, did he violate U. S. law? No. As adopted children, they have become U. S. citizens as far as the U. S. is concerned.

Did he violate the South American country's laws? Apparently not. No one seems to know which country.

Did he violate Ireland's laws? I would guess no, they probably don't recognize the adoption, and the children are probably no longer Irish citizens; but even if they are, going there would just be two children whose mothers had simply tendered the care of their children to a foreigner couple, able to give them a good life.

A bit circuitous, but -- so what?

[DoughtyOne]

I didn’t watch them. Eee gads!

[DoughtyOne]

I agree. And that’s why they get these bad suggestions.

[DoughtyOne]

No, no hard to believe at all. I’ve just not seen any documentation of it. This is a plausible premise though.