I'm sure you've all heard about how the Little Sisters of the Poor won their case against OCare's contraception mandate.
For details, they're available elsewhere, I'm sure.
Only 2 dissenters (or is it dissentresses (or dissentrixes)?), Notorious and the Wise Latina.
So the Short Shortstop who, they said, was going to charm the Conservatives into coming over to the dark side and Breyer joined the other 5, including Roberts.
My question is this. Roberts?
He's supposed to be in Barry's hip pocket. Or nearby. How could this have happened?
Roberts is supposed to be Catholic, so did he get a warning from the Big Bad Boss With The Big Hot Sauce? After all, he tripped and cracked his head
Maybe it was Trump. Maybe Trump has something more on him than the Choom Gang. Maybe Trump leaned on him. He does have connections, the Lefties keep telling us.
Maybe it was a combination. Maybe The Donald and the Sucreme Bean, as my sister called Him when she was little, are on better terms than we think.
Maybe, maybe, They Are One. The God Emperor of the Cherry Blossom Throne.
It would explain a few things.
Updated.
5 comments:
Actually, the Wise Latina, along with Justice Ginsberg, were vehement in dissent.
The seven-vote majority was Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Kagan and Breyer, although Kagan and Breyer signed onto a separate opinion while supporting the ultimate outcome.
Roberts isn't as easy to explain as many think. He votes right, even boldly so, too often to say he's simply gone over to the dark side.
Here's my take on it. Roberts considers it his job, as chief, to be the "captain of the ship." He's thinking a lot about how much the High Court is labeled as partisan or extreme or whatever, and while I don't think he expects he can prevent that, he wants to make that accusation plausibly deniable. So there are some high-profile cases where he goes the other way. Why he casts any particular vote can depend on any number of things.
In the case of the Bostock decision, in which Gorsuch redefined "sex" in the Civil Rights Act, it makes sense to me that he voted with that majority to keep the opinion out of the hands of Ginsberg, but I can only surmise. In the Louisiana case, his choice to write a concurrence that ends up controlling, and moving the law away from where the liberals wanted it to go, was a very curious one. He could simply have voted for the majority opinion; that would have been worse, and less work. It's possible (we can only surmise) he is playing a long game; it is possible he didn't want to have a ruling undermining Roe handed down this year; it's possible he wants to have six votes to wreck Roe. And it's possible he doesn't want to overturn or damage Roe at all, and only voted good when it wouldn't matter -- but why?
Oops.
Looks like I learned how to read a court opinion at another place. I stand corrected and will update.
Another great post ed. Keep it up. You really bring something to this blog.
I think Roberts is no true judge. He makes decisions strategically instead of on the merits. He is more of a politician and not a true conservative one. He is a Rhino through and through.
Another bitter legacy of the failed Bush administration.
If Roberts is a politician he's a pretty poor one. He has converted no on on the left and really angered people on the right. He makes idiotic noises about protecting the integrity of the court instead of the constitution.
He is also engaging his personal TDS with some of his rulings. His DACA and Census and now his Trump tax rulings shows it's personal.
I remember reading at the time that he was pressuring Kennedy to vote to protect Obamacare, the indications were that Roberts would have voted against it. When Kennedy wouldn't budge Robert's changed his vote and issued the demented Tax/Fee argument. This guy is going to outdo Earl Warren's record.
The padre has his points. As I say, IdiotCare seems to be sacred for him, but not much else.
And, no, I have no idea why.
Trooper York said...
He is a Rhino through and through.
I think more of a Compassionate Conservative, although it may well be distinction without difference.
YMMV
PS Thanks.
Post a Comment