It's not the worst of it, but what I may be actually angriest about (right now) is Roberts' smarmy smugness and dismissiveness in the final two paragraphs of section IV and the whole of section V. "Fear mongering," "extreme hypotheticals," "our perspective must be more farsighted," and this.

IIRC the "extreme hypotheticals" were discussed at argument?

The primmest “stop hitting yourself nerd” practitioner of all time.

Joe Biden should immediately test that and nuke his fucking house. Houses.

Roberts showed us who he was when he pushed thru the “Citizens United” decision yrs ago and and has been doing everything he can do to thumb his nose to the constitution ever since. He’s just as bad as corrupt hacks Alito & Thomas.

This is the same guy who wrote that courts are better at understanding how to implement the law than the executive branches that are in charge of implementing the law, right?

I submit they're also smug about Trump's chances in November.

The irony meter detonated like a nuclear weapon when he accused his dissenting colleagues of "impressive infallibility". Hard to imagine such limited self-awareness.

The use of the mocking "infallibility" is particularly galling. The Framers were fixated on human fallibility as a problem for democratic forms of government. That is why they would have never authorized presidential immunity. It is Roberts who foolishly assumes "infallibility" by a President.

I remember when we were told the fall of Roe v Wade was an extreme hypothetical

Looks like plain vanilla gaslighting.