What did renowned defender of women’s rights, Justice Kavanaugh, say?
Has senator Collins been able to be reached for comments?
Roberts is still a bad judge overall but inject the conservative outrage at him over this decision into my veins.
2 Likes
Glad to have the ruling but the cynic in me worries that this is the kind of stuff that gets the sitter-outers off their couches and to the polls in November. “Sure Trump is horrible but RBG her inevitable replacement are much, much worse.”
1 Like
it doesn’t matter what Congress has done since the CRA was passed, what matters is their intent at the time it was passed
Disagree. If the meaning of the words has changed, they should change the words.
The idea that our judges should be reaching into the minds of the 18th century is absurd.
this doesnt actually hurt any conservatives
Fewer people for them to prey upon and scapegoat absolutely hurts them.
This seems like the kind of thing highly engaged types find plausible but isn’t actually a thing in real life. Anyone that cares about abortion enough to vote on it single issue is already voting.
2 Likes
I read reference to this yesterday without knowing the specifics. I guess the story would have outed a confidential source from twenty years earlier.
I was surprised that 88% of people thought it was a slam dunk reveal.
Of course, this would not have mattered and Kavanaugh gets confirmed anyways.
If a conservative justice died and was replaced by a liberal and an opportunity arose to overturn the 5-4 ruling in a decision like Rucho v Common Cause, would you someone voting to keep with stare decisis even though they dissented in the original case?
Kavanaugh seems to be saying that the Louisiana law would be unconstitutional if it affected access to abortion to the same degree as the Texas law did in Whole Women’s Health, but he is not sure if it is, so the case should be sent back down to the lower court for more fact-finding, which has been deficient. Or he wants to punt and hope that Trump is re-elected, one of the liberals die, and there is a clear majority to overturn everything.
1 Like
WHAT DO LIBERALS HAVE ON ROBERTS? Chicago Mob that left office in 2016 got the goods on him during the passing of BARRY CARE ACT.
- Roberts, Bush’s gift to “deep state”, is a never Trumper
Supreme Court Justice ROBERTS sucks DIRTY HORSE ****!!!
3 Likes
Solid alt rock band name.
1 Like
Sometimes evil has difficulty coordinating.
Or they are not keeping all their eggs in one basket, creating multiple potential templates for a future decision overturning this one.
This decision probably saves the GOP 2 Senate seats in the next election and more over time.
The outrage is nice tho.
I think your question is missing a crucial verb, but I assume I understand what you’re asking.
Of course I have preferences in outcomes: I generally want liberal positions, so I’m happy to see Roe affirmed and I’d be happy to see the Voting Rights Act restored.
My point was that Roberts obviously had an outcome that he would have liked - the abortion restrictions in both TX and LA kept in place. His vote in today’s LA case was obviously based on principle, because it went against the outcome that he liked. I have some respect for that. Would I hypothetically have some respect for Kagan voting to overturn the Voting Rights Act for principled reasons even though she personally liked it? I guess a small amount, but it would be dwarfed by the outcome of her voting against it.
Short story: I love it when conservative justices vote on principle against their personal beliefs. (Like Gorsuch in the recent workplace discrimination case.) I would like it much less if liberal justices voted on principle against their personal beliefs.
I don’t think your reasoning (‘obviously based on principle’) is at all clear. It’s just as clear to me that in both cases (TX and LA) Roberts was interested in a particular outcome (not severely limiting access to abortion). It’s just that in TX, he had the luxury of dissenting and in LA he did not.
In all these recent decisions I believe Roberts figures out what outcome he is looking for from a political and reputational standpoint, and then works backwards into the reasoning.
1 Like
Roberts actually (personally) wanted to not limit access to abortion, but dissented in TX because he wanted to maintain his street cred while still getting his preferred outcome? That seems bonkers to me, but maybe I’m not fully understanding your point.
Correct, I don’t take issue with your summary of my point.
Am I to believe that Roberts has never issued an opinion that would have overturned existing precedent? Wouldn’t any example of him doing this serve as a counterexample of your “obviously based on principle” reasoning?
Good - wasn’t trying to strawman you.
Sure, one that comes to mind immediately is his statement that Korematsu was desired wrongly and is effectively no longer valid (albeit in dictum).
I feel like we must be speaking past each other because I don’t think my point is controversial. It’s not that Roberts is generally principled or always rules based on principle rather than personal preference, or that he always respects stare decisis. It’s that in this particular case, I think he must have ruled on principle because his actual vote didn’t line up with his preferred outcome revealed in the TX WWH case.