This disturbs me.
Nothing to this point has, but this does.
Because the Constitution clearly did not prohibit this law.
Me too
Because the Constitution clearly did not prohibit this law.
-----
Roberts has stated he supports "settled law" -- meaning he would not be a justice in favor of turning over establish law. Was this initiative not already "settled law"?
But let's not forget he was not deciding this issue. He provided some advice, and after reading it, it sounded more like political advice, rather than legal advice, for what that might be worth.
Independent of Roberts, it is still sick that the will of the voters was again squashed by a liberal-activist SCOTUS.
The Constitution did not clearly prohibit what law? IIRC this was some sort of blanket anti-"gay rights" law that attempted to neutralize all existing and FUTURE laws relating to this rather wide topic. I think a pretty solid argument can be made that the Constitution prohibits laws that curb citizens' and their state legislators' right to pass new laws.