Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Abortion Restrictions

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Kennedy has taken a sharp turn to the left. What's the catch?

That he hasn't.  On abortion he's always been a moderate hero and all this decision did was strike down two provisions that claimed to be about protecting women's health but clearly had no purpose other than to restrict abortions.  I could see him possibly voting to sustain some of the new round of laws that essentially ban abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy, but not something as sweeping as these provisions were in impacting 1st trimester abortions.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Kennedy has taken a sharp turn to the left. What's the catch?

That he hasn't.  On abortion he's always been a moderate hero and all this decision did was strike down two provisions that claimed to be about protecting women's health but clearly had no purpose other than to restrict abortions.  I could see him possibly voting to sustain some of the new round of laws that essentially ban abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy, but not something as sweeping as these provisions were in impacting 1st trimester abortions.

Well, most SCOTUS analysts disagree with you on that, and they point at his Carhart vote.
But even so that doesn't explain his sudden change of heart on affirmative action.

Carhart was about very late-term abortions, not all abortions. Kennedy has clearly shown he views early abortions differently than late abortions. Ever since the oral arguments on this case it as clear he'd be skeptical of the Texas law so I don't know which analysts you were reading.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I see both of them acknowledges and then ignored the fact that Kennedy doesn't live in their polarized worldview.  Not everyone views abortion and affirmative action as simple binary issues, and Kennedy is one of the most non-binary people in public life today. Support for early term abortions does not imply support for late term abortions.  Support for affirmative action does not imply support for quotas.  In both Carhart and Grutter, Kennedy found that the laws involved were attempts to achieve unconstitutional ends via figleaves purporting to not be such attempts. It's hard to see how one could have ruled in favor of Fisher in her case and left any constitutional means to achieve affirmative action.