Just one of the matters about yesterday’s Supreme Courtroom final decision obliterating the grotesque fiction that baby-killing is a Constitutional appropriate that struck even non-lawyers (thanks be to Heaven) like myself was the way that the concurring view prepared by Chief Justice John Roberts study significantly a lot more like a dissent than the way it was billed. The objection that Roberts raises to the reasoning in Dobbs is that it goes even further than Roberts thinks needed. He’s eager to uphold the Mississippi law but he would just update the Roe/Casey mess with another rule. He agrees with the critique of Roe by the vast majority but does not…
