Changes

Roberts has not provided the 5th vote for the side opposed by the [[liberal media]] since 2013, when he held that pre-clearance for election law changes were archaic and unnecessary in ''[[Shelby County v. Holder]]''.<ref>https://www.huffpost.com/entry/john-roberts-supreme-court-voter-suppression_n_60d4f7ffe4b0da66c2dd7e14</ref> Then that was not a very high-profile issue, and a year earlier Roberts avoided being the [[conservative]] 5th vote against [[ObamaCare]].

Roberts has not provided the 5th vote for the side opposed by the [[liberal media]] since 2013, when he held that pre-clearance for election law changes were archaic and unnecessary in ''[[Shelby County v. Holder]]''.<ref>https://www.huffpost.com/entry/john-roberts-supreme-court-voter-suppression_n_60d4f7ffe4b0da66c2dd7e14</ref> Then that was not a very high-profile issue, and a year earlier Roberts avoided being the [[conservative]] 5th vote against [[ObamaCare]].

Like the notorious Chief Justice [[John Marshall]] who pretended to oppose [[slavery]] while voting against slaves in every case, Chief Justice John Roberts pretends to oppose [[abortion]] while voting in the last few years for the [[pro-abortion]] side every single time, most recently in voting unsuccessfully to block a [[pro-life]] [[Texas]] law on September 1, 2021, in ''Whole Woman's Health et al. v. Austin Reeve Jackson, Judge'' (No. 21A24).

Like the notorious Chief Justice [[John Marshall]] who pretended to oppose [[slavery]] while voting against slaves in every case, Chief Justice John Roberts pretends to oppose [[abortion]] while voting in the last few years for the [[pro-abortion]] side every single time, most recently in voting unsuccessfully to block a [[pro-life]] [[Texas]] law on September 1, 2021, in ''Whole Woman's Health et al. v. Austin Reeve Jackson, Judge'' (No. 21A24). However, Roberts did concur in judgment to overturn ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' in ''[[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]]''.

Roberts does not adhere to judicial [[originalism]] and seeks to bend the law to not appear too "conservative."<ref>Horowitz, Daniel (September 13, 2019). [https://www.conservativereview.com/news/conservatives-must-fight-judicial-supremacism-not-hang-hopes-john-roberts/ Why conservatives must fight judicial supremacism — and not hang their hopes on John Roberts]. ''Conservative Review''. Retrieved September 13, 2019.</ref> On November 21, 2018, the Chief Justice Roberts issued an unusual rebuke of President [[Trump]]'s reference to an "[[Obama]] judge," even though Trump's comments were supported by a statistical analysis of forum-shopping by the [[Left]] in their lawsuits against Trump, and the decisions in those cases.  President Trump immediately responded with tweets criticizing the Chief Justice and pointing to the evidence.<ref>https://www.apnews.com/c4b34f9639e141069c08cf1e3deb6b84</ref> However, Roberts did not issue such a statement after Obama criticized Supreme Court justice [[Samuel Alito]] for ruling in a way the former disapproved of.<ref>Multiple references:

Roberts does not adhere to judicial [[originalism]] and seeks to bend the law to not appear too "conservative."<ref>Horowitz, Daniel (September 13, 2019). [https://www.conservativereview.com/news/conservatives-must-fight-judicial-supremacism-not-hang-hopes-john-roberts/ Why conservatives must fight judicial supremacism — and not hang their hopes on John Roberts]. ''Conservative Review''. Retrieved September 13, 2019.</ref> On November 21, 2018, the Chief Justice Roberts issued an unusual rebuke of President [[Trump]]'s reference to an "[[Obama]] judge," even though Trump's comments were supported by a statistical analysis of forum-shopping by the [[Left]] in their lawsuits against Trump, and the decisions in those cases.  President Trump immediately responded with tweets criticizing the Chief Justice and pointing to the evidence.<ref>https://www.apnews.com/c4b34f9639e141069c08cf1e3deb6b84</ref> However, Roberts did not issue such a statement after Obama criticized Supreme Court justice [[Samuel Alito]] for ruling in a way the former disapproved of.<ref>Multiple references: