"But the Roberts Court could do ANYTHING" is the new "my Twitter law take is equivalent to your actual lawyer take" argument: basically, knowing anything about law is pointless because the Roberts Court could, possibly, just overturn it.
/1

/2 This is, of course, nonsense. Some Roberts Court decisions seem shocking -- but mostly to people who have not followed developments in the law. Those cases got to the Supreme Court for a reason, because the possibility for the particular change in law was on the radar.

/3 That doesn't mean they're right; it doesn't mean they're good. It just means that you can't say "I was shocked by this outcome and therefore any hypothetical outcome that would shock me is equally plausible." It's not.

/4 "You say that's the law but the Roberts Court could change it" is an empty argument without context showing that, in fact, it's within striking distance on this issue. It's basically "but what if a wizard with a nuke" for law. https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/12/11/no-rape-is-wrong-even-if-there-is-a-wizard-with-a-nuke/