This is really really great news and I don& #39;t want to put a damper on it, but it is ASTOUNDING that this is more or less the exact same case litigating the same issues as Whole Women& #39;s Health, which SCOTUS decided in 2016, and still 4 justices refused to recognize court precent. https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1277605600453632000">https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/st...

A few things to note here:
-Roberts& #39;s concurrence is entirely premised on the fact that a nearly word-for-word identical statute to the Louisiana law was struck down by the court in 2016. This suggests he has a modicum of intellectual honesty the other conservative justices lack.

-It does not suggest, however, that he would uphold Roe and Casey. He has been clear that he believes those decisions are flawed, and the moment there are five justices ready to overturn them, I would bet just about anything he& #39;ll join them.

-The fact that this even got to the Supreme Court is absolutely absurd. THE EXACT SAME LAW, ALMOST WORD FOR WORD, WAS STRUCK DOWN IN 2016. I& #39;m not sure what the answer is to conservative states implementing undeniably unconstitutional laws, but it& #39;s wasting tremendous resources.

-Conservative voters are much more focused on the court than liberal ones, and this is a big problem. There will be at minimum one, and likely more, Supreme Court appointments in the next five years. The two oldest justices are Ginsburg (87) and Breyer (81).

-If Trump appoints the next Supreme Court justice, and if Republicans maintain control of the senate, I suspect it& #39;ll look a lot like Kavanaugh - or worse, like his federal bench appointees, many of whom are facially unqualified for the job and appointed only because of ideology.

-Do not trust John Roberts. If given the opportunity -- i.e., a law that is not identical to the one the court just decided -- he will absolutely vote to overturn Roe and Casey. The only way to avoid that is to get a Dem in the White House & hopefully Dem control of the Senate.