I am now convinced that Roberts will be the swing vote
After all, it was his vote that kept the ACA the law of the land.
And, I think, on other cases - I am not a legal maven - his vote was not of the rabid Scalia-Thomas school.
And I think that now. that he realized how Whiny Donny is the petulant kid who has to have the last word, who says the first thing that comes from that void between his ears, Roberts will conclude that his court will have to stand on guard of this country, of its Constitution, of its reason for existence. Certainly the Senate will not.
I hope.
= new reply since forum marked as read
with Breyer and RBG
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Souter
SNIP
Initially, from 1990 to 1992, Souter leaned conservative. In his first year, he and Scalia voted alike close to 85% of the time; Souter voted with Kennedy and O'Connor about 97% of the time.[citation needed] The symbolic turning point came in two cases in 1992: Planned Parenthood v. Casey,[14] in which the Court reaffirmed the essential holding in Roe v. Wade; and Lee v. Weisman, in which Souter voted against allowing prayer at a high school graduation ceremony. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Kennedy considered overturning Roe and upholding all the restrictions at issue in Casey. Souter considered upholding all the restrictions but still was uneasy about overturning Roe. After consulting with O'Connor, however, the three (who came to be known as the "troika"
developed a joint opinion that upheld all the restrictions in Casey except for the mandatory notification of a husband while asserting the essential holding of Roe, that a right to an abortion is protected by the Constitution.
After the appointment of Clarence Thomas, Souter moved to the middle.[12] By the late 1990s, Souter began to align himself more with Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, although as of 1995, he sided on more occasions with the more liberal[23] justice, John Paul Stevens, than either Breyer or Ginsburg, both Clinton appointees.[14] O'Connor began to move to the center. On death penalty cases, worker rights cases, criminal rights cases, and other issues, Souter began voting with the liberals in the court. So while appointed by a Republican president and thus expected to be conservative,[24] Souter came to be considered part of the liberal wing of the court. Because of this, many conservatives view the Souter appointment as a major error on Bush's part and have intensely scrutinized future potential Republican appointees to determine whether they will be reliable conservatives.[25] For example, after widespread speculation that President George W. Bush intended to appoint Alberto Gonzales—whose perceived views on affirmative action and abortion drew criticism—to the court, some conservative Senate staffers popularized the slogan that "Gonzales is Spanish for Souter".[26]
An opinion article by The Wall Street Journal some ten years after the Souter nomination called Souter a "liberal jurist" and said that Rudman took "pride in recounting how he sold Mr. Souter to gullible White House Chief of Staff John Sununu as a confirmable conservative. Then they both sold the judge to President Bush, who wanted above all else to avoid a confirmation battle."[27] Rudman wrote in his memoir that he had "suspected all along" that Souter would not "overturn activist liberal precedents."[6] Sununu later said that he had "a lot of disappointment" in Souter's positions on the court and would have preferred him to be more like Justice Scalia.[6]
Notable decisions
SNIP
--------------------
I hope so too
