Chief Justice John Roberts lost the Supreme Court and the defining case of his generation

Chief Justice John Roberts has long piloted America’s highest court, securing majorities on controversies over religion, 种族, voting rights and campaign finance regulation. But on fundamental abortion rights and in the defining case of his generation, Roberts came up short.

Friday’s decision in 多布斯诉. 杰克逊妇女健康组织, which overturned nearly a half-century of precedent, will be a seminal case in the annals of law and learning. It will be paired with the 1973 鱼卵. Wade landmark that had declared a constitutional right to end a pregnancy, just as the 1954 Brown v. 教育委员会, which ended theseparate but equaldoctrine and began desegregation of schools, has long been tethered to Plessy v. Ferguson, 的 1896 decision that permitted separate but equal accommodations for Black and White people.
Yet where Brown ensured rights, 当然, Dobbs eliminated them.
    It was a sober, even humble Roberts who wrote — 单独 — as he separated himself both from the conservatives who dissolved a constitutional guarantee and from the liberal dissenters who expressed sorrow for American women and warned of further erosions on privacy.
      The 67-year-old chief justice, who is finishing his 17th session, confessed to a rare lack of confidence.
        Both the Court’s opinion and the dissent display a relentless freedom from doubt on the legal issue that I cannot share,” 他写了. Referring to the disputed Mississippi law at the heart of the Dobbs case, 他加了, “I am not sure, 例如, that a ban on terminating a pregnancy from the moment of conception must be treated the same under the Constitution as a ban after fifteen weeks.
        罗伯茨, who has forcefully pushed for conservative outcomes on race and religion, had tried to move incrementally here. He attempted to split the difference, to uphold the disputed Mississippi law that prohibits abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy but to hold off on confronting Roe.
          I would take a more measured course,” he wrote and urgingin vainsome judicial restraint, 说过, “If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more.
          Yet as much as the reversal of Roe represents a significant defeat for Roberts and is a singular, staggering moment for the country, the chief is down but not out. 的 2005 appointee of Republican President George W. Bush still generally resides on the winning side of this ideologically lopsided bench.
          Just one day before Dobbs, Roberts was part of the supermajority that struck down a New York handgun law and greatly expanded Second Amendment rights. Earlier last week, he wrote the 6-3 opinion requiring states that subsidize private schools to include religious education, further breaching the separation of church and state.
          Watch Fox News and MSNBC hosts react to Roe v. 韦德裁决

            刚看完

            Watch Fox News and MSNBC hosts react to Roe v. 韦德裁决

          必须注意

          Watch Fox News and MSNBC hosts react to Roe v. 韦德裁决 02:44

          Roberts has taken the lead against racial remedies, regarding them as both outdated and unconstitutional, and he authored the consequential 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision curtailing voter protections, particularly in the South and other places with a history of discrimination at the polls.
          仍然, Friday’s Dobbs decision was monumental and will demarcate the Roberts Court era, even as he was outflanked on abortion-rights precedent by Justice Samuel Alito, who penned the Dobbs decision, and Justices 克拉伦斯·托马斯, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
          Those last three justices were appointed by former President Donald Trump, and their sheer presence had emboldened Mississippi officials to seek an expansive decision in a case that originally was confined to the validity of the 15-week ban.
          The three liberals who fully dissented remarked at the speed with which the relatively new five-justice bloc, secured by the 2020 addition of Barrett, moved to reverse Roe.
          在这样做, 他们写, “this Court betrays its guiding principles.They said they felt sorrow for the court itself although morefor the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection.

          The right wing grew weary of waiting for ‘another day

          罗伯茨’ fate on the losing side of Dobbs was foreshadowed last year when he heatedly dissented as the same five conservatives who controlled in the Mississippi dispute allowed Texas to put into effect a six-week ban on abortion, known as S.B.8.
          The clear purpose and actual effect of S.B. 8 has been to nullify this Court’s rulings,” including Roe v. 韦德, Roberts wrote last December as the five justices endorsed the Texas ban that they had first permitted to take effect on September 1.
          It was a sign that the tactical and usually persuasive chief justice, who himself has been critical of abortion rights, was outmaneuvered by a fivesome who wanted to go further, faster.
          Barrett’s succession of the late liberal Justice 露丝·巴德·金斯堡, to be sure, diminished Robertsnegotiating power. Her appointment transformed what was a 5-4 conservative-liberal court into a 6-3 长椅, where Roberts no longer holds the crucial fifth vote for either wing. As the far right showed in Dobbs: it does not need the chief.
          Roberts had proposed a limited resolution at oral arguments last December, but he apparently never had any real momentum against the anti-Roe five. There were no signs in the opinions released on Friday that those who joined Alito had wavered in the view that, “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences.
          卡瓦诺, who has sometimes joined Roberts in compromise, stuck with a line of arguments he had tried out at oral arguments, that reversing Roe puts the court in aposition of neutralityon the abortion dilemma.
          Roberts declined to address that assertion in his concurring opinion, but dissenting Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan wrote that eliminating the right to abortionis not taking a ‘neutralposition.
          Roe and the 1992 case that broadly reaffirmed it, Planned Parenthood v. 凯西, had prevented states from interfering with a woman’s right to end a pregnancy before a fetus was viable, 那是, could live outside the womb. Viability occurs at about 23 周.
          Roberts sought toleave for another day whether to reject any right to an abortion at all.
            Alito dismissed that possibility, 说 “‘another daywould not be long in coming. Some states have set deadlines for obtaining an abortion that are shorter than Mississippi’s.
            He said that Roberts’ “quest for a middle way would only put off the day when we would be forced to confront the question we now decide. The turmoil wrought by Roe and Casey would be prolonged. It is far betterfor this Court and the countryto face up to the real issue without further delay.

            评论被关闭.