Former British Colony in Downward Spiral of Ethnic Violence, State Security Impunity

[Montmorency]

Apex whiteness.
https://newrepublic.com/article/1583...uns-protesters
https://twitter.com/xshularx/status/1277398234055483393


Today Chief Justice Roberts sided with liberals in the abortion case (June Medical Services) that we've been watching for a year. He specifically cited the precedent he disagrees with and voted against (Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, decided 5-3 in 2016 with Kennedy supporting the liberals), saying

I joined the dissent in Whole Woman’s Health and continue to believe that the case was wrongly decided. The question today however is not whether Whole Woman’s Health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case...
The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike. The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents... Stare decisis instructs us to treat like cases alike. The result in this case is controlled by our decision four years ago invalidating a nearly identical Texas law. The Louisiana law burdens women seeking previability abortions to the same extent as the Texas law, according to factual findings that are not clearly erroneous. For that reason, I concur in the judgment of the Court that the Louisiana law is unconstitutional.

Some might point to Justice Kagan's recent votes with the conservatives on some decisions emphasizing the importance of precedent as contributing to Roberts' tack. Also, he must have had a bone to pick with the appeals (Circuit) court judges who preempted his institutional prerogatives by unilaterally overturning his superior court precedent to uphold the Louisiana regulations concerned. Above all however I suspect Roberts just realized that trying to flagrantly body-blow abortion rights in the midst of a combined pandemic, economic crisis, and racial uprising that are profoundly depressing Trump's approval and election polling would be - strategically inadvisable. Evidence for this is that Roberts' concurrence is very narrow and offers a qualified-immunity-sized allowance where he might rule differently if the facts of the case (the regulations under review) weren't so similar to those of the holding precedent.

Adam Serwer puts more stock in the sincerity of Roberts' ideological commitments than I do, but his observation is sound that

The Louisiana abortion case is another example of Roberts rejecting bad faith conservative arguments. He’s just saying you can’t tee up an identical case after losing the previous one just because you won an election and replaced a couple of justices. Law didn’t change.

Another case with a decision handed down today was Seila Law v. CFPB. Here Roberts sided with Trump in ruling Congressionally-protected executive offices unconstitutional under separation of powers.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/29/supr...-director.html

Before the election the Supreme Court might decide on the ACA (Obamacare) case California v. Texas coming to them, in which the Trump admin endorses full demolition of the legislation. Considering the present results, if Trump's indicators continue to look sunken in 4 months I seriously doubt many GOP operatives would be comfortable with an ACA-repeal October surprise. If the decision is handed down following a Biden victory, Roberts' willingness to screw with an incoming Democratic government might depend on the size of the Dems' Senate caucus.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-file...ornia-v-texas/

@STFS
@ACIN