His concurrence was in the result - that Mississippi could enforce it’s post-15 week abortion ban law.
He disagreed with the reasoning.
If the backlash lasts 20 years, we’ll have more permissive abortion laws than today.
Incrementalism was unlikely to create the same backlash. Maybe
“His concurrence was in the result - that Mississippi could enforce it’s post-15 week abortion ban law. “He disagreed with the reasoning.”
He’s being a politician, not a jurist. Seldom is a judicial concurrence so disjointed between a result and the reasoning that leads to the result, because as Alito spent so much time making clear, he could not separate the reasoning from the result. To do so would be to continue the fiction that the justices should set standards - this is O.K., that isn’t O.K., aboout a matter the Constititution makes no apparent right or mandate about. Bush errored mightily when he gave us Roberts.