Mississippi Abortion Ban Case to be Heard December 1 by Supreme Court

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If abortion went away as an issue right wing cultists would just focus on something else the court decides: guns, CRT, gays, the list goes on and on.  They try to win every cultural issue through the courts because most of society doesn't agree with them and they can't win these issues at the ballot box.

And they of course make the exact same allegation about liberal sociocultural policies. The truth is that on a lot of this stuff we just don't know what positions would hypothetically win at the ballot box because the US's current government system and political culture--including, yes, previous arrogations of power by the judiciary--have made resolving them democratically structurally impossible.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Listing to the arguments it sounded like a 6-3 in favor of Mississippi. Roberts seemed to want to find a more narrow ruling than the other Justices. I see him assigning the opinion to himself or to a justice he has convinced to write a narrower opinion. He might fail to keep a majority behind his opinion and I could see him writing a sole concurrence in a 5-1-3 case or this case turning into a messy plurality opinion. Hard to see a majority invalidating Mississippi's law

The swing vote on Roe is probably Gorsuch.

What makes you say that? He might not have as "personally pro-life" a reputation as most of the other conservative justices, but nothing about his jurisprudence suggests he'd be at all open to reaffirming a decision that (from a textualist perspective) goes out on as many limbs as Roe just because it's longstanding precedent. He might be the most "procedurally extremist" current justice despite the relatively nuanced substance of his views.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Will Roberts end up with just a lonely vote from himself?

I've seen speculation that he might try to craft something baroque enough for Kagan to join it, but I doubt she'd do so unless it would be the controlling precedent, which would presumably require Kavanaugh and/or Barrett to join it too.