Sources: Roberts fought to the end to save Roe v. Wade

Chief Justice John Roberts privately lobbied fellow conservatives to save the constitutional right to abortion down to the bitter end, but the unprecedented leak of a draft opinion reversing Roe v. Wade made the effort all but impossible, multiple sources familiar with negotiations told CNN. CNN's Joan Biskupic has more. #CNN #News


  1. He says I would have voted for Roe V. Wade but the leak forced me to go the other way.
    *** I don’t think so ****

    1. @Sandra Kicklighter no, he voted to uphold the Mississippi 15 week ban but preserve Roe. So it was partiallly concurring but also partially dissenting

    2. @Sandra Kicklighter What? The vote was 5-4, Roberts voted with the liberal judges, and his vote is all that matters.

    3. @Jonathan Tate so he was trying to both sides it. And I don’t really get how you can rule in favor of an abortion ban while claiming to preserve the right to obtain an abortion but ok.

    4. @Sandra Kicklighter That’s not what I concurring opinion means, it’s only concurring in the outcome of the specific case, not in the subsequent arguments and precedent setting.

  2. I really wish CNN would stop trying to launder Roberts’ reputation. He has earned his poor reputation and history will remember him for it.

    1. @Dave Nolan Yeah whatever dude. You have no clue …. Your blue anon. Has it occurred to you that maybe he’s doing what he thinks is right ?

      And how are they not right ? The second amendment is guaranteed by the constitution and each state has the say on how it’s implemented…. Abortion is not a given right and is given the same.. big deal snooze.

    2. @What’s Good My Guy No clue, huh? So many people know this Roberts guy is so compromised it ain’t even funny. Roberts should have stayed away from that island with that surveillance equipment in every room. .

    3. @Dave Nolan Yup. No clue. Post your proof or begone !!!!
      You didn’t care when Billy boy was on the island did ya?

  3. It’s an illusion, trying to make him look good but ultimately, he voted against keeping Roe v Wade.

    1. @Faux Que What you just wrote really does more to confirm my comment than it does to refute it. Be careful, when invoking the word “stoopid,” that you do not fall under its spell yourself.

    2. he barely did the right thing, and acted like an idiot about it. Just like his appointer, George W Bush… compassionate conservative

  4. Roberts is one of very few public figures who knows exactly what’s in the dossier being kept on him…

  5. Roberts is trying to play both sides of the fence. He did the same thing when he voted for Obamacare based on a technicalities.

    1. @Warren Peace however, a fetus is not viable on its own until after the 26th week of gestation. That makes the whole fetus’s rights trump the mother’s rights not as simple as you interpret.

    2. @Relevant Elevant when you don’t know what you’re talking about, you resort to labels and slogans instead of ideas and points of view.

  6. Way to almost do something that you didn’t do. πŸ‘ I guess this news story is about winning 2nd place… which is just a prize for not winning πŸ₯ˆ

    1. Seems to fall under the new trend of praising people for doing the bare minimum these days.

  7. I find it disturbing that a sitting justice has to lobby other justices to make a decision based on anything other than the constitutionality of the case before them.

    1. @HeplMeh first of all, the argument is about whether the constitution actually has anything to say about the matter. Regardless of morality.

      Second, for the sake of argument, what irks pro life people is the notion of terminating viable pregnancies. The pro choice movement did a terrible job messaging what they actually wanted. Hearing the more extreme types advocate for abortions whenever and for whatever reason simply pissed people off. I don’t think most people would support that anyway

  8. This seems like it’s meant to be good pr for roberts. Opposite affect for me, if any of this were even true. CNN just making chit up again

  9. As Chief Justice couldn’t Roberts have simply refused to hear the case?
    I’m not sure how the court operates.

    1. 1 claudermiller Fuk what you saying it here 😠

      Felicidades, es un buen ejemplo. 😠
      5:25 Se deja ver que hay muy buenos resultados 😠😠

      Saludos desde la Cd.. de world πŸŒΉπŸ˜‰πŸ’–
      los mortales abian apreciado tan hermosa mujer

    2. He could not have refused to hear the case. If 4 justices agree to hear it (ie grant certiorari) they must hear it. Peace and love.

    3. Regardless, he’s nothing special as a socalled Chief Justice. He has no particular influence over either side of the court. What’s the point?

  10. Big deal … the deck is so stacked now that Roberts can look like a “good soul” and take the other side even when he knows the outcome he really wants.

    1. Disagree. Roberts has always been the sanest of the right wing Justices. He’s sided against the right MANY times to protect rights and precedent. It’s no surprise he fought on this. He actually believes in precedent.

  11. this hypocrisy is unbelievable. during the whole video they say; that leak killed John Roberts effort, but at the end of the program the reporter says that leak could have been very strategic.
    I wished they had courage to call it out even though it is from their base.

    1. The implication is it was strategic to achieve that effect, i.e. to lock in the majority. I.E. the leak if strategic by that logic came from the right side of the court. That’s really what she’s implying.

  12. Obviously not hard enough. what he needed to do was set a precedent in law by opening a hearing on weather to remove justices
    for lying to congress to get appointed. which would have included Thomas. if the highest court doesn’t know that lying to congress
    is against the law than who should? Excuses plain and simple!

  13. This is like saying you’re trying to pass legislation, just for show, when you know it won’t go anywhere. And then saying that you tried. Every politician voting with their party regardless of their true beliefs.

  14. I call bs on that. The argument that allowing abortion bans would violate the 13th amendment’s prohibition against involuntary servitude clearly applies and thus prevents the 10th amendment from applying. It seems he’s more adept at making excuses than he is at constitutional law.

    Edit: Also, the final vote was 5-4. All he had to do was vote against overturning it and the problem would have been solved…

  15. This is disturbing that the 5 voting against a constitutional right needs to be lobbied. What a terrible Supreme Court we now have. It’s so sad that we have become so medieval.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.