Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Chris J. Karr's avatar

"Even though the Court upheld the Texas law in the short term, it is unlikely that there are enough votes to overturn Roe completely. We’ve already seen Chief Justice Roberts, a pro-life judge, shift toward the center on the issue. It is widely believed that Roberts's more recent jurisprudence is focused on preserving the integrity and independence of the Supreme Court for the long term, rather than pushing a particular ideological agenda. There are valid concerns that an unpopular decision could energize Democratic proponents of expanding the Court."

I wouldn't read too much into Roberts' vote here. I can imagine that between this "no one in the gov't to sue" shenanigan (wait until a state uses this law as a template for violating some other protected right, like allowing residents to sue others for promoting anti-vax messages), combined with Biden's attempt to game the Court on the eviction moratorium, the Chief Justice is probably getting pretty damn tired of the other branches and states dumping their crap on his Court. The Mississippi case will be a good one to watch with respect to his position on the issue more so than this too-clever-by-half Texas law, which may only be a process vote for Roberts.

Expand full comment
Miguelito's avatar

I think what’s not being considered enough is the implications of allowing people to sue strangers, even in other states, over aiding an abortion. If this draconian aspect of the law stands, it will open the floodgates to these types of laws from the left. Wait until California passes a law allowing anyone to sue gun sellers or owners after a gun is used in a shooting, anywhere in America. This is a terrible law and it’s shameful the Supreme Court punted on it.

Expand full comment
11 more comments...

No posts