From what I understand he sided with the conservative majority on the actual Dobbs case, but opposed going all the way to overrule Roe.
Gotta give it up to the left, Epstein island was such a brilliant idea whether Epstein came up with it or the CIA, it was unreal brilliant.
Wonder what Current Events looks like in your classroom. Poor kids.
Then both the Dallas Morning News and the New York Times got it wrong. Both - in their headlines - said 6-3.
You just read the headlines huh? Not surprised.Then both the Dallas Morning News and the New York Times got it wrong. Both - in their headlines - said 6-3.
https://epaper.dallasnews.com/app/DAMONE/editionguid/d9329c98-33ea-480e-8e0f-f1a2adb9d0ad
He concurred in the result of upholding the Mississippi statute, but gave his own reasoning that did not “side with the conservatives”.
The laugh’s on you CowboyJD. Whether it be 6-3 or 5-4, Roe is DEAD! 😊
They certainly value their rights to kill children more than they value the ability to buy food and gas.
Okay. I‘m man enough to admit that I misinterpreted that sending Roe back to the states is the equivalent to overturning it. I don't claim to be a law expert (cue the Animal House line “pre-law, pre-med? whats the difference?”).
No need for your “the laugh’s on you JD” post either.
You do realize that headlines contain more substance than your posts, right?
Yet here you are day in and day out begging to engage. If only there was some substance behind your bluster.
Yeah, because you’re the only poster on this board, right? Besides, it’s fun pointing out your hypocrisy and stupidity, baizuo.
I guess I don’t get the difference. If he agreed to the case brought forth that Mississippi had the right to set parameters how does that not by itself reverse RvW.
There have been numerous refinements to the date cut-off, which was at the heart of the Mississippi decision. The overruling in its entirety of Roe is a very different and more activist move by the conservatives.
Well that’s not what he said in his concurring opinion either. He didn’t opine that Mississippi had the righ to set the parameter wherever they wanted. He restricted his opinion to the facts of the case and the parameter that had actually been set..
I understand that’s what he said, but to me that was contradictory to how he ruled. If anther state brings the same law as Mississippi that would then be lawful and you end up at the same place. States setting their own laws. I don’t pretend to know the nuances of the law I’m just looking at it on its face.
It’s not contradictory to how he ruled. He concurred in the result (upholding the law) because it didn’t violate Roe as refined and further set forth in Casey. His opinion fully left open the possibility that a state setting the deadline at (picking a random number for explanation purposes) say three weeks post conception would unduly burden the right and be unconstitutional.
Not sure if this helps. The justices vote to either affirm or reverse the lower court. The southern district of Mississippi struck down the statute. The 5th circuit court of appeals (which covers Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas) affirmed SD Mississippi, I assume citing Roe. SCOTUS voted 6-3 to reverse the decision of the 5th circuit. Once that happens, the court delivers an opinion. Justices can deliver concurring opinions and dissenting opinions. As I understand, Roberts did not join in the opinion overruling Roe. One of the things I find of interest, and this may not be the rule anymore, but as Chief Justice and having voted with the majority, Roberts has the authority to designate which justice delivers the opinion of the court. He could have designated himself. I only know this because one of my professors was a clerk at SCOTUS. I have no idea what sort of discussions go on behind the scenes.
I don’t have a good answer for you. My guess is that this is something Roberts controls as Chief Justice. He seems like the type that would pull this kind of shit to “make ‘em pay” for overturning a key precedent.
Nothing unusual about announcing rulings at the end of the Court term which starts by statute in each October.
