> I don’t love the decision, but I actually like the process. And I don’t think it is legislating. It is interpreting the law. I think this is naive. Roberts i

> I don’t love the decision, but I actually like the process. And I don’t think it is legislating. It is interpreting the law. I think this is naive. Roberts is not "calling balls and strikes" despite what he would have you believe. The conservative wing of the court has been willing to adopt a range of interpretations to accommodate their outcome. It's not just setting aside precedent but their increased use of emergency motions (shadow docket) to issue orders without explanation.