"But the Roberts Court could do ANYTHING" is the new "my Twitter law take is equivalent to your actual lawyer take" argument: basically, knowing anything about law is pointless because the Roberts Court could, possibly, just overturn it.
/1

/2 This is, of course, nonsense. Some Roberts Court decisions seem shocking -- but mostly to people who have not followed developments in the law. Those cases got to the Supreme Court for a reason, because the possibility for the particular change in law was on the radar.

/3 That doesn& #39;t mean they& #39;re right; it doesn& #39;t mean they& #39;re good. It just means that you can& #39;t say "I was shocked by this outcome and therefore any hypothetical outcome that would shock me is equally plausible." It& #39;s not.

/4 "You say that& #39;s the law but the Roberts Court could change it" is an empty argument without context showing that, in fact, it& #39;s within striking distance on this issue. It& #39;s basically "but what if a wizard with a nuke" for law. https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/12/11/no-rape-is-wrong-even-if-there-is-a-wizard-with-a-nuke/">https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngul...