Supreme Court is 5 liberals, 4 conservatives

[tb-av]

That said, I still believe he will vote correctly on gun cases.

I don't trust his judgement for a second.

[Averageman]

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.

I don't trust his judgement for a second.

If my earlier linked article is correct, I don't believe we can expect his judgement or thought process to be stable or in tune with the Constitution on anything.
If his "Legacy" means more than the Constitution, we're screwed.

http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/08/...macare-ruling/
In this article Roberts is to have said;
"I took that position not because I agree with Obamacare, but because Congress in 2017 decided to set the mandate penalty to zero while maintaining the rest of the law. Of course, Congress had taken no such action clarifying its intent on the law at the time of the ruling in NFIB v. Sebelius."

If the current lawsuit represents judicial activism, asking judges to take an action that Congress explicitly declined to embrace, then Roberts’ 2012 decision to uphold the individual mandate represents an act of judicial cowardice, running for cover and hiding rather than taking the decision that the law requires.

What in the Wide, Wide World of Sports is he thinking? The problem with Obamacare was multi faceted. It's not only a .gov mandated purchase, there was a tax penalty if you refused to purchase it.

[tb-av]

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.

Being unreliable is not good. That's not to say he need be a shill for one party. Also not to say he should make 'trade offs' based on party. Unreliable means to me he is sort of like a stopped clock that starts to run occasionally. You just never know what it will do and if it's right.

How much would you like to bet Grizberg has no DNR. I would almost bet there are orders to "keep her comfortable" until Trump is gone. I'm beginning to think 2020 is even more important now for SCOTUS than 2016 was. Basically Roberts has captured the court. .... and I'm pretty sure he has no love for Trump.

Granted this case needs to go to the lower court first but the rest of the Roberts situation still exists.

[sundance435]

Temporarily enjoining a state from enforcing a law is nothing new and Courts throughout history, regardless of their "political" bent have done it often, and then still rule that the law is constitutional. Also, Roberts didn't give us Obamacare, the Executive and Legislative branches did and a true "constitutionalist" will give great deference to decisions made by the Legislature, whether we like them or not. True strict-constructionists believe that courts don't make law (as the Founders intended) - sometimes that cuts both ways. That said, I don't take it for granted at all that Roberts will hold one way or the other.

To me, a court that is unpopular to some degree in both camps is doing it right.

RE: Abortion. Honestly, I don't care from a political perspective. You either value life or you don't. Ain't gonna legislate that belief system into or out of existence for most people. Just like I don't need the government to tell me that unjustified homicide is bad or not.

[Dr. Bullseye]

Now, the Court has shifted and moved the the Right with its majority. This means Roberts at the courts head, has no real power anymore. All his moves to the Left are just a balancing act designed to make him more important. One more appointment on the Right after RBG dies and Roberts fades into obscurity.

[sundance435]

Now, the Court has shifted and moved the the Right with its majority. This means Roberts at the courts head, has no real power anymore.

I could write a lengthy reply, but, basically, you're completely wrong - historically, and about Roberts. First, math - 4/4 and Roberts is the new swing vote AND gets to choose who writes the opinion if it's 5-4. Second, why do you think Earl Warren was considered one of the most powerful people in America, if the chief justice lacks "real" power.

[OldState]

Three factors make me hopeful he will vote correctly on gun issues...
1) he did before ...twice
2) the 2nd Amendment protects a core human right ...not a new entitlement
3) he knows how his Obamacare decision has been discussed in posterity. He is aware those stories posted in this thread are widely known. He looked like a sellout.

[Alex V]

Being unreliable is not good. That's not to say he need be a shill for one party. Also not to say he should make 'trade offs' based on party. Unreliable means to me he is sort of like a stopped clock that starts to run occasionally. You just never know what it will do and if it's right.

How much would you like to bet Grizberg has no DNR. I would almost bet there are orders to "keep her comfortable" until Trump is gone. I'm beginning to think 2020 is even more important now for SCOTUS than 2016 was. Basically Roberts has captured the court. .... and I'm pretty sure he has no love for Trump.

Granted this case needs to go to the lower court first but the rest of the Roberts situation still exists.

To me it looks like when it comes to cases of freedoms he will err on the side of freedom. That's why we got Heller and McDonald. He may consider access to abortion a freedom issue as well. You can argue that the child doesn't have his or her freedom protected by the may feel that the law in question restricts the woman's freedom. Just a wild guess. I know.

[tb-av]

To me it looks like when it comes to cases of freedoms he will err on the side of freedom. That's why we got Heller and McDonald. He may consider access to abortion a freedom issue as well. You can argue that the child doesn't have his or her freedom protected by the may feel that the law in question restricts the woman's freedom. Just a wild guess. I know.

That actually sounds reasonable and if he could be counted on to err on the side of freedom I could live with that. It seems though that his Obamacare ruling was anti-freedom in nature. But... granted the 2A and Abortion are not in the same 'freedom realm' as health care / insurance. They are really two different type animals in that regard.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

While Roberts gives me the willies, isn't this a potential win? If the pass on it, it becomes law. If they take and rule on it, they can actually move the goal posts.