[–] QuiteEasilyAmused 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
I suspect you are very easily distracted.
[–] Light_Guard 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
It sounds like he ruled in timid concern about public perception. The reasons states wanted to defund PP had nothing to do with abortion.
[–] Nomobrat 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Your linked Washington Examiner article explains it on the end in an update and above that. It's not the real case and Kavanaugh didn't want to interfere with a running case:
... But these cases are not about abortion rights. They are about private rights of action under the Medicaid Act. Resolving the question presented here would not even affect Planned Parenthood’s ability to challenge the States’ decisions; it concerns only the rights of individual Medicaid patients to bring their own suits."
This certainly does not sound like a majority that is chomping at the bit to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Update: One Supreme Court watcher writes: "As I recall the history of this case, the first vote for cert [i.e. certiorari — granting a hearing] would have taken place before Kavanaugh's appointment — and Roberts would have had to refuse to vote for cert then as it only takes four votes to accept the case. I assume Kavanaugh did not want to be the late-arriving fourth vote for cert, and that's a reasonable call for a brand-new justice to make.
[–] JaneQDoe 0 points 7 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago
It could have been the wrong case (for the Pro-Life side). There is strategy involved in which cases to hear.
[–] Dandelions7 [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Could be, just strange. Breitbart reporting Gorsuch expressing concern that some of their colleagues – likely meaning John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh – are “abdicating our judicial duty” because the cases involve Planned Parenthood, which many Americans equate with abortion rights.
[–] WhyAserverWasBuilt ago
Or the work must be done by legislators.