Supreme Court is 5 liberals, 4 conservatives

[OldState]

Ive said before that I feel Roberts is obsessed with optics. He absolutely does not want leftist scholars to paint him as an “right wing activist” for posterity. If the balance of the court was opposite, he would have voted differently with Obamacare.

That is the case that I always go back too when I think of him. It should have been clear cut, but he invented a way to Constitutionally justify it despite the courts almost unanimous dismissal of commerce clause argument. He said it was a tax and therefore legal even though the Obama administration vehemently denied this. This was shocking to me.

That said, I still believe he will vote correctly on gun cases. I’m starting to think the Constitutionalist judges are concerned with the precedence being set by law makers in CA, NY, etc. The obvious goal is to make gun ownership so cumbersome and onerous as to gradually limit those wishing to exercise their right to self defense. Once they get overall ownership down below 20% they can try to amend the constitution and erase the 2nd Amendment. I think many on the court see this.

[Averageman]

Ive said before that I feel Roberts is obsessed with optics. He absolutely does not want leftist scholars to paint him as an “right wing activist” for posterity. If the balance of the court was opposite, he would have voted differently with Obamacare.

http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/08/...macare-ruling/

She writes that he initially voted with the four other conservatives to strike down the ACA, on the grounds that it went beyond Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. Likewise, he initially voted to uphold the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid. But Roberts, who kept the opinion for himself to write, soon developed second thoughts.

Biskupic, who interviewed many of the justices for this book, including her subject, writes that Roberts said he felt ‘torn between his heart and his head.’ He harbored strong views on the limitations of congressional power, but hesitated to interject the Court into the ongoing health-insurance crisis. After trying unsuccessfully to find a middle way with Kennedy, who was ‘unusually firm’ and even ‘put off’ by the courtship, Roberts turned to the Court’s two moderate liberals, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. The threesome negotiated a compromise decision that upheld the ACA’s individual mandate under Congress’s taxing power, while striking down the Medicaid expansion.

[The_War_Wagon]

Roberts is a liberal. He can not be trusted. Why do I say this? Look at the 5-4 ruling blocking Louisiana’s abortion restriction. How tf are we so close to losing our God given right to have firearms?
And God help us for tolerating abortion. 60+ million murdered since roe v wade.

His waffling gave us ShitbamaKare, too.

[glocktogo]

http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/08/...macare-ruling/

She writes that he initially voted with the four other conservatives to strike down the ACA, on the grounds that it went beyond Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. Likewise, he initially voted to uphold the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid. But Roberts, who kept the opinion for himself to write, soon developed second thoughts.

Biskupic, who interviewed many of the justices for this book, including her subject, writes that Roberts said he felt ‘torn between his heart and his head.’ He harbored strong views on the limitations of congressional power, but hesitated to interject the Court into the ongoing health-insurance crisis. After trying unsuccessfully to find a middle way with Kennedy, who was ‘unusually firm’ and even ‘put off’ by the courtship, Roberts turned to the Court’s two moderate liberals, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. The threesome negotiated a compromise decision that upheld the ACA’s individual mandate under Congress’s taxing power, while striking down the Medicaid expansion.

If true, how can that be construed as upholding the law?

[Averageman]

If true, how can that be construed as upholding the law?

It simply cannot be upholding the Law, it's upholding a potential legal "Legacy" for people to read about in the future and go, "Damn, that Roberts was not only a man of the people, he was really unoffensive when it came down to his rulings."
WTF?
If in the middle of doing what is right and making the hard decisions, you suddenly feel the need to lick a finger to figure out which way the wind is blowing, well, you're likely not going to be able to make those hard decisions.
After the Obamacare debacle I assumed someone had some serious dirt on Roberts, now I see it was likely Roberts throwing us under the bus because what is right means far less than what is right for Roberts potential "legacy."

[Firefly]

If people stopped fornicating and women started open carrying there would be no rape.

Actually... a LOT of abortions are buyers remorse.

I think in a way...like...pregnancy should be a consequence on a philosophical level.

There was a time when like lifelong marriages were predicated on “doing right by the first piece I ever got”

Now I support super late term abortions. Like, if your kid is 18 and just not humaning the right way; the parents should legally be able to shoot his ass. Like...Lamondre is out boosting cars or robbing. Well....prison is full so...just..deal with it.

Conception to 17=safe
18+= Folks get to shoot him at home

It worked in olden times...

[Co-gnARR]

The Justices try to follow precedent. Roe is the law of the land by ruling, and that ruling is precedence.

I find abortion to be abhorrent outside of protecting the life of the mother, rape, incest, and severe deformities or defects. Even in those cases it’s a tragedy that it happens.

On the other hand most women who would kill their own offspring are probably unsuitable mothers, and mostly totalitarian leftists. So they’re self limiting their own political faction by killing the next generation before they’re born. If people I dislike want to not breed and contaminate my area with their idiot children who they’d raise poorly to be leftists, I can think of worse things.

They should still consider adoption, but silly selfish bitches are silly and selfish.

The problem is many of these women use abortion as an excuse for poor self discipline. Specifically, educated, privileged liberal women. They see the doctor when they are young, wild and irresponsible but after they settle, these same women tout their maternal wisdom with mommy blogs, social activism for leftist ideology (Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense) and perpetuate the idea of abortion as the ultimate expression of feminist power. They may slaughter their own in their 20’s but they do spawn later on down the road. It’s a form of virtue signaling- they think they can atone for “the toughest decision ever” by being super moms.

[Alex V]

I bet you guys all loved Roberts during Heller and McDonald.

Point is, he is unreliable. He has ruled to help us with 2A issues, I consider this a trade off. Plus, if SCOTUS decides to take the case we don't know how it will be ruled. Further, it won't be ruled on until early 2020 which means that we have all of 2019 for RBG to die.

[Firefly]

too touchy for me

[Co-gnARR]

Abortions aren’t a sign of female power. It is a weakness. A weakness of men. A weakness of women. A weakness of society.

Yes, exactly. As I see it, leftist thinking really is an expression of fear, self doubt and weakness. It is a cry for big government to provide the bubble, the comfy blanket, the assurance of protection for a society that doesn’t want to grow up and shoulder the burden of adulthood, ie, self reliance.