Roberts tried and failed to uphold the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. He’ll now go down in history as a contributor to one of the most regressive phases for the USSC ever.

I agree in that Roberts at least recognizes that his job is to interpret laws as they are passed by Congress and not use the court to legislate.

This, at least, is his intention and he himself says that is “for the people we elect, not for lawyers.” He also pushes back on Windsor’s question about whether or not it’s his job to put the country on a “moral path.”

That being said, I would assert Roberts ended up doing exactly that when he voted with the 6-3 majority on Dobbs. While it is true he did disagree with the majority’s reasoning, and even if he flipped it would not have changed the outcome, he definitely knew the gravity of the courts decision; the court would be fundamentally revoking a right American’s had for nearly half a century.

Regardless of Roberts’ intentions with the court, it is clear that Alito wants to both interpret the law according to his own, theocratic ideology and will twist his interpretations to effectively legislate.

I admire Roberts’ approach to the court, but it only works when all his colleagues act in good faith, and they clearly are not. His pretending otherwise is to live in a fantasy, and it’s really his court in-name-only.

Edit: grammar and clarified Windsor’s question to Roberts.