LA Times is really misleading here.
Firstly, that’s not what the ruling said. The ruling just said that the lower court properly applied SCOTUS precedents in rejecting a map.
But the Times’s story misleads that there is a contradiction here. Even if Roberts opposed a clause in a law, now it’s his job to rule on laws even if he doesn’t personally favor them.
It’s a completely different job in a completely different situation.
I wasn’t talking about the juxtaposition.
For example, regardless of anything else, it’s simply not relevant that Roberts took that position in the past while working in a different role. The paper brings that up to spin a misleading tale that the guy has changed his position.
It is misleading in its own, standalone right.
@volkris The juxtaposition is mine. Those little blue dashes were my attempt at indicating that I pasted together the two passages. You're right that this would have been the wrong way to report this in the newspaper. I was making a point that the paper was not.