re: Justice Roberts is an Embarrassment

quote:

---

Doesn't make sense. He could simply join the majority, assign himself the opinion, and narrowly rewrite it to allow the 15 week cutoff.

---

Uhmmmm......that's not how it works.

If he assigns himself to be the opinion writer, he still needs to get four other Justices to join that opinion.

If he can't, then his opinion isn't the majority opinion.

Some other judge in the ACTUAL MAJORITY is assigned to write the ACTUAL MAJORITY OPINION by Clarence Thomas.

If they can't get four other Justices to join that majority, then Roberts would need to persuade at least four other Justices to join his opinion. And, while they would join his opinion making it the majority opinion, they could write separate concurring opiniond saying that they also would have gone a step further and directly overruled RvW.

This is basically what happened with the Odumbf*ckCare opinion. The four FILTHY f*cking liberals join Roberts' bullsh!t opinion on the fraudulent "tax" issue, but the only did so to achieve their and Odumbf*ck's political agenda. None of the four politicized c*cksuckers actually believed it. So, they joined in Roberts' joke of an opinion just to make sure that Odumbf*ckCare wasn't declared unconstitutional -- like it should have been. They then wrote their separate concurring opinion which they all joined saying how they really thought the case should be decided.

If this plays out the way it's currently thought to be, the four other conservative justices will join Alito's majority opinion. Any of them can write a separate concurring opinion which the others can join if they agree with it.

Roberts will write a dissenting opinion upholding Mississippi's law which none of the Liberal filth will join. But, I'm guessing that this is just Roberts attempt at a "compromise" and if he can't convince any of the conservative Justices to go along with him, he'll just join the minority and may or may not join one of their dissents. He could also join the majority opinion but write a separate concurring opinion saying that, AT THIS POINT, he would have just stopped at adjudicating the Mississippi law and would put off to a later date at deciding the fate of RvW when that fact pattern is before the Court.

The three liberal pieces of FILTH will get together and write a scathing and incoherent dissent that will not address the logic or Constitutional underpinnings of RvW but will just cry like a bunch of p*ssies about muh-almost 50 years of precedent and how RvW was nothing short of a DNC de facto Constitutional amendment.