Not what happened.
A FReeper attacked Bush because Roberts ruled this way.
One teeny tiny little problemo...
The ruling was unanimous.
Clarence Thomas, Alito (Bush, too), Scalia, the whole lot of them ruled the same.
Therefore, attacking Bush because Roberts ruled the way all the others also ruled is...
What shall I call it?
I don’t use that kind of language.
Nobody is reaming either Roberts or Bush for the one part that all the justices agreed to send back to the 9th Circuit.
What’s at issue is the other 3/4ths of the law, that Roberts voted with the majority on - against Scalie, Alito, and Thomas.
If the 1/4th that got sent back to the 9th Circuit was unanimous then it was going to be that decision regardless of whether the other 3/4ths were thrown out or not. So Roberts had no strategic reason to side with the liberal justices.
So why did he?