Souter II

News that I missed, courtesy of The Babylon Bee:

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts wrote in his decision ruling against restrictions on abortion today, “We can’t just overturn precedent,” though he presides over the highest court of a nation where slavery was once legal.

“Sorry, guys, nothing we can do. The law is the law. Sucks that there’s no way to change it, but that’s life. It’s in the Constitution,” he said, shrugging. “If a previous court decided something, we have to abide by it. There’s literally no recourse.”

Roberts suggested, though, that the country could come up with a method to overturn unjust precedents if we all put our heads together and think really hard.

“If only there were some way to challenge something that’s unjust,” he mused. “We could bring a complaint, or petition, before a group of people trained in the law who could change immoral precedents. I dunno, just something to think about.”

Go here to read the rest.  So John Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States, has gone full Souter on us.  Actually, he is worse than Souter.  Souter did not attempt to conceal his leftward march with the base alloy of hypocrisy, which is just what Roberts has done.  From finding Obamacare to be a tax, to yesterday in the abortion decision where he found that stare decisis required him to follow a 2016 case he voted against, Roberts always discovers some technical reason which, surprise!, gives victory to the Left.  He obviously thinks that conservatives are idiots to be fooled by such transparent mendacity. Justice Thomas in his dissent yesterday has the number of the Chief Justice:

THE CHIEF JUSTICE advocates for a Burkean approach to the law that favors adherence to “‘the general bank and capital of nations and of ages.’” Ante, at 3 (quoting 3 E. Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France 110 (1790)). But such adherence to precedent was conspicuously absent when the Court broke new ground with its decisions in Griswold and Roe. And no one could seriously claim that these revolutionary decisions—or Whole Woman’s Health, decided just four Terms ago—are part of the “inheritance from our forefathers,” fidelity to which demonstrates “reverence to antiquity.” E. Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France 27–28 (J. Pocock ed. 1987).More importantly, we exceed our constitutional authority whenever we “appl[y] demonstrably erroneous precedent instead of the relevant law’s text.” Gamble, supra, at ___ (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 2). Because we can reconcile neither Roe nor its progeny with the text of our Constitution, those decisions should be overruled. * * * Because we lack jurisdiction and our abortion jurisprudence finds no basis in the Constitution, I respectfully dissent.

Go here to read the text of the decision.  Roberts is a bad judge, and, much worse than that, he is a deeply dishonest man.