Conservative chief justice John Roberts, on a conservative SCOTUS, will now be a frequent dissenter

[I’m not Stu]

There will be many partisan conservative 5-4 decisions with conservative John Roberts dissenting. Roberts is now a pathetic loser who looks like an idiot! Clarence Thomas will get to assign a flood of partisan opinions. Roberts looks like a fool claiming it is apolitical.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Roberts was always a pathetic loser. His "prestige of the Court"-based judicial "philosophy" is beneath contempt. I have more respect for Thomas than I have for him.

[I’m not Stu]

Roberts can’t even protect it’s image anymore.

[If my soul was made of stone]

Roberts was always a pathetic loser. His "prestige of the Court"-based judicial "philosophy" is beneath contempt. I have more respect for Thomas than I have for him.

His obsession with the image of the Court as a "fundamental American institution" or whatever carries a very unsettling paternalistic streak that's in many ways as terrifying as the most hackish indulgences of Alito or Thomas. The fact that he's been adopted by #resistance liberals as an icon really speaks to their delusional reflexive trust in institutions as an inherent good and this era as uniquely hostile to them, as though we needed any more proof of how dangerous civil religion is.

[I’m not Stu]

Roberts will be the most dissenting chief justice in history.

[Torie]

Roberts is anything but "pathetic." That's a ludicrous observation in my opinion. And I admire him very much. Thank you.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

Roberts isn't a pathetic loser, he is the final last beacon of reason for a court that has gone off the rails. Thanks for refusing to retire, RBG.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Roberts dissents from so-called "conservative" decisions have been based mainly on preserving good process and the rule of law rather than him being for or against certain policies. Of the current justices, he's the one least likely to base his decisions on what he thinks policies should be rather than deferring to the determination of what the other branches say those policies should be. If he were on a liberal SCOTUS as determined to legislate from the bench as the current conservative SCOTUS appears to be, he'd be dissenting a lot in that case as well.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

I mean, from a consequentialist standpoint, I can appreciate Roberts voting correctly but his motivations are absurd and not to be respected. Decisions based on public opinion, reputation, and whatnot are not a valid judicial philosophy. To the extent that the court's reputation as an objective institution matters (and I think that it does, or at least should), it's because its rulings are grounded in a sound, intellectual interpretation of the law, not cynical pursuit of respect *as the end itself.* I wouldn't go so far as to say Alito's blind hackishness is more respectable than Roberts' worldview, but I certainly find more of merit in what you might call "Gorsuch conservatism" over "Roberts conservatism."

In the case of Texas itself, Roberts' dissent was basically correct on technical grounds. Regardless of whether he's upholding it for reputation alone, the court has established abortion before viability as a constitutional right. Texas' law explicitly contradicts this, and centuries of legal precedent show that this law should not be allowed to be enforced unless the court actually has the courage to take up the case and overturn Roe. Passing on the case was gross judicial irresponsibility--passing the buck, if you will--and Roberts was right to call out his colleagues on those grounds.

[lfromnj]

I mean, from a consequentialist standpoint, I can appreciate Roberts voting correctly but his motivations are absurd and not to be respected. Decisions based on public opinion, reputation, and whatnot are not a valid judicial philosophy. To the extent that the court's reputation as an objective institution matters (and I think that it does, or at least should), it's because its rulings are grounded in a sound, intellectual interpretation of the law, not cynical pursuit of respect *as the end itself.* I wouldn't go so far as to say Alito's blind hackishness is more respectable than Roberts' worldview, but I certainly find more of merit in what you might call "Gorsuch conservatism" over "Roberts conservatism."

In the case of Texas itself, Roberts' dissent was basically correct on technical grounds. Regardless of whether he's upholding it for reputation alone, the court has established abortion before viability as a constitutional right. Texas' law explicitly contradicts this, and centuries of legal precedent show that this law should not be allowed to be enforced unless the court actually has the courage to take up the case and overturn Roe. Passing on the case was gross judicial irresponsibility--passing the buck, if you will--and Roberts was right to call out his colleagues on those grounds.

Agree with both paragraphs, stare decisis isn't necessarily a good principle for SCOTUS to be using, but it should really be upholding it at the very least for judicial stays until they can properly overturn Roe if they wish to. If the end result is that Roe is not overturned but the Texas law is legal that will literally result in one of the scariest results possible because that means any right doesn't matter if a state can just delegate bounties to anyone exercising their rights.

And yes Roberts being the most beholden to public pressure is a bad quality of a judge.

[Non Swing Voter]

This is why Dems should just pack the court.  The best argument against this I've heard is that the GOP will just pack it more when they get power again.  So what?  We've had a conservative majority on the court for like 50+ years now.  Now it's so f'ing looney that it's too conservative for a GWB appointee.  So at most the court goes back to the status quo (of the last 50 years) after it's re-packed.

So why aren't Dems serious about packing it? 

[Ferguson97]

So why aren't Dems serious about packing it? 

A lot of them probably want to, but they don't have the votes. They're not a monolith.