The leaking of a draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has rocked the Court and Washington. The 98-page draft opinion is dated Feb. 10, 2022 and authored by Associate Justice Samuel Alito. I have two columns (in USA Today and The Hill) today on the opinion and the disgraceful leak from within the Court.
The opinion is joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. It declares that “Roe and Casey must be overruled. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
The opinion can change but the damage done to the Court as an institution will likely be lasting. This shattered a long tradition of the Court of strict secrecy and integrity in the handling of drafts.
The leak is the greatest crisis faced by Chief Justice John Roberts and the greatest security breach in the history of the Court.
While leaks have appeared periodically on internal strife or issues on the Court, I cannot recall anything of this scale. Roe itself was the subject of leaks. The Washington Post did run some leaks the court’s internal deliberations. Then there was a premature disclosure of information hours before the formal release of the opinions. A few hours before the release, word got out on the holding of the Court. However, that all pales in comparison to the release of a draft opinion months in advance of the expected release.
Chief Justice Roberts has confirmed the legitimacy of the draft and the launching of an investigation.
The question is how the Court will proceed in the investigation. Anyone taking this deeply unethical act is likely to have taken steps to hide their tracks. I would be surprised if there were a paper trail or email record. However, anyone who would take such a reckless act may have been equally reckless in the means used to violate the Court’s rules.
If the culprit is a lawyer, disbarment would seem a virtual certainty. This person may be a hero in the eyes of some, but will remain a pariah in the eyes of any ethical lawyer. Yet, disbarment could be the least of the problems. If a suspect lies to the FBI, there could be prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 1001.
Thus, the culprit will have to make a decision today of whether to radically increase the potential costs of this act. There are a relatively small number of individuals with access to these drafts. It is likely that the culprit will be contacted quickly with others by investigators. That will prove a critical moment that could transform an unethical into a criminal act.
Statement from SCOTUS, per CNN: “Yesterday, a news organization published a copy of a draft opinion in a pending case. Justices circulate draft opinions internally as a routine and essential part of the Court’s confidential deliberative work. Although the document described in yesterday’s reports is authentic, it does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.”
Statement from Chief Justice Roberts, same CNN article:
“To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed. The work of the Court will not be affected in any way.
“We at the Court are blessed to have a workforce – permanent employees and law clerks alike – intensely loyal to the institution and dedicated to the rule of law. Court employees have an exemplary and important tradition of respecting the confidentiality of the judicial process and upholding the trust of the Court. This was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants who work here.
“I have directed the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the source of the leak.”
Why are drafts not part of the public record? They work for us. We the People own the firm inown as The US Government. Therefore, we own all the documents and have the right of access to all of them.
That the government owns a document does not imply that the document should be public, and there is a legal process for obtaining documents through FOIA.
What was the “extensive damage” Roe has caused? Did Alito ever clarify?
In terms of Federal Court stability, Roe and Casey strong on “workability” – meaning they made lower court decisions easy to decide.
If this goes forward, and we enter a phase of elevated conflict where States are suing each other in Federal Court over conflicting abortion policies (e.g., medical vacationing, mail-order RU-486, cross-border suits against citizens), the whole notion of jettisoning a uniform federal policy and unleashing interstate conflict will not look like a paragon of “workability” — these suits will vex the Federal District Courts, and ultimately, the Supreme Court will end up undermining the Federal Courts and itself.
Only Congress taking up a bipartisan National Abortion Rights and Responsibilities Act will correct this adventurism.
Not be be flippant, but so what? Look at the firearm laws, they couldn’t be more different not just state to state, but within the states between different counties and cities. And that’s for a right that is specifically written out in the Bill of Rights!!!
Of course gun laws could be more different!
A state could totally outlaw firearms, just as some states have laws on the books totally outlawing abortion.
Abortion laws already varied from state to state.
A state cannot outlaw firearms. They might be able to highly regulare them, but they cannot outlaw guns. If they could, what other amendment could they outlaw?
There will be an “investigation” of sorts by this commie administration, but nothing will arise but leftist outrage before the election.
Whoever did this is now a hero in the eyes of the left and will, forever, find employment of a gratuitous nature before and after their incarceration, (I doubt if that will even happen under a republican won congress – the rot goes so deep).
The total “transformation – (they meant annihilation) of America was begun long before Tail Gunner Joe even sniffed out his first commie and obama was the apotheosis of this long march. The right in this country has been asleep at the switch for far too long and should step up and take the blame for this national catastrophe.
You assume it was leaked by someone on the left. There is no reason to assume this.
We simply don’t know who leaked it or why.
I’m a liberal. I don’t consider the leaker “a hero.”
I will assume, perhaps incorrectly and am happy to admit that if it’s the case, that it was a millennial activist within the court that thinks they are fighting the good fight, because that’s what their college professors told them. Being a sheltered and entitled clot of grievances that grew up in the most peaceful and prosperous time the West has ever seen and having been sheltered from the tiniest of slights, even an unexpected rains storm their algorithms failed to predict, they likely think they are on the side of some kind of perverted righteousness. That Sotomayor may be involved is a pretty crystal clear indication that the Democratic party in this country is a lost cause intent on total domination, no matter the destruction in the interim, even to themselves. Power and control at any cost. This is blatant, sad, and readily apparent now in media, news, and even TV shows (and thankfully Netflix is bleeding subscribers due to their insistence upon wokeness in virtually everything they make themselves). Yes, Mao would be proud. We have to fight this with every fiber of our beings if we do not want to end up being another China. For real. This is no longer conjecture, it is not a chided former majority complaining, – no. This really is becoming freedom or leftist fascism – period, and we cannot let dirty tricks sway us, because they are only going to get dirtier over the next couple of months. This is only the beginning. Stop voting dem. Vote against the dems in a capacity that cannot be overtaken by fraud. And no, that does not automatically mean you must vote Conservative. At present at least, our system is a spectrum.
Well said, I cannot emphasize enough the need to confront this infestation of chaos for the sake of destruction. This is academia run amuck and must be curtailed if we truly want western civilization to survive.
You are not forced to assume anything.
You are choosing to make assumptions because you’d rather assume something that not.
Logic fails you. The why is obvious. The leaker is hoping that someone on the court will change their mind. Those voting to overturn and their families will be threatened every way imaginable. We don’t know how leaked it but if their is a true investigation we will learn who it is. Given the number of fascist and communist in leadship positions at the FBI we may never learn who the leaker is. Whoever leaked this will be financially rewarded by left wing scoundrels.
“The leaker is hoping that someone on the court will change their mind.”
You do not know that. You assume it, but your assumption is not knowledge.
The only outcome of this leak at this time is to rouse dem voters to their flagging election campaigns, There is no benefit to the right for such a heinous act but it does seem the sort of dirty trick that a Lib would use at this point – (the ends justify the means crowd that is).
So Professor Turley, is the unhinged rant above the kind of civility you expect from your posters?
What if the leak comes from a Supreme Court Justice?
O Soothsayer, speak on!
There are nine Justices, 36 law clerks, staff members, support staff, clerical employees…Lots of possibilities. I think speculating (such as the speculation currently online, pointing to a particular clerk) is unfair because oftentimes the wrong person becomes the suspect, and his reputation is irreparably tarnished while the real culprit sits back and laughs.
Biden’s policies have given us sky high gas prices and Leftists tell us to go buy an electric car. He floods the country with illegal immigrants during a pandemic and we’re told to double mask and get a vaccine or else. Inflation is draining our wallets, warnings of food shortages are looming and we are told Putin’s war on Ukraine is to blame. A state passes a law banning K-3 from sexual orientation indoctrination and Biden tells the teacher’s that that children in the classroom are their children. Fentanyl is flooding across the southern border killing Americans and Mayorkas tells us the border is secure. Musk buys Twitter, vows to make it a free speech site and suddenly “our democracy” is ready to collapse. In every self-inflicted crisis from this administration, average Americans have been forced to adapt, improvise and find a way to exist. But somehow, when word is leaked that SCOTUS will end Roe v Wade, the pro-choice bloc is in a panic because adapting, improvising and/or finding a way to not have to rely on an abortion is too much to bear. Surely, if the Left insists that men can menstruate, that they are birthing-people too, then surely they can use that magic pixie dust to figure out a way to prevent pregnancies in “birthing people” that haven’t figured it out for themselves.
No, Trump’s incompetence has given us sky-high gas prices and inflation, due to the country being mostly shut down for about 2 years because he lied about the seriousness of the pandemic when experts told him the truth. The school, business and factory shut downs that resulted, plus Trump’s trade war with China are responsible for the supply chain shortages that are fueling inflation. Biden isn’t “flooding” the country with illegals, either. No one is “indoctrinating” school children with either CRT or “sexual orientation” propaganda–more culture war blather designed to deflect away from the findings of Jan 6th about how deeply involved Republican members of Congress were in planning the insurrection. Biden has nothing to do with Musk purchasing Twitter. None of these “crises” are due to Biden or his Administration–he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression, unemployment above 10%, a pandemic out of control and a record budget deficit. Biden has set an historical record for creating jobs, and has reversed Trump’s disastrous deficit.
You speak of Twitter and “freedom of speech”–Trump used Twitter to spread the Big Lie and marshal his fans to attack our Capitol because he couldn’t stand the fact that he had lost the election. Are you saying that this is acceptable–using a social media platform to spread lies and promote an insurrection?
The other things you say are similarly nonsensical and just proof the depth of your discipleship and ignorance.
None of us knows who leaked this and why.
But for those who insist that it came from someone on the left, I’ll note that others are conjecturing that it came from the right:
Rick Hasen (law prof): “One thing to keep in mind here: some may say this SCOTUS leak benefits those who oppose overturning Roe. But it actually helps the majority that overturns by (1) deflecting commentary to breach of Court secrecy norms and (2) lessening the blow by setting expectations.”
Joseph Fishkin : “I have zero inside knowledge, but I will wager this: this leak comes from a clerk or Justice whose sympathies are with the leaked opinion, worried (in a slightly crazy way) about locking that majority down, and willing to take the extreme step of leaking to advance that goal.”
What could possibly be the benefit to the right for enraging/engaging the fanatic left at this point? the only upside to this for the right is a further demonstration to the nation just how unhinged the left is as the proceed to “peacefully” protest throughout the summer.
Alma, while ATS is debating whether it came from the right or the left, I think one can be reasonably sure it came from the left. The left is lawless where election procedure is concerned. Taking note of all the election irregularities that are presently being proven, I think Biden would not have won without such lawlessness. If the left cares so little about our Constitutional Republic that they corrupted a presidential election, stealing and releasing a draft from the Supreme Court is easy to imagine.
We are not dealing with freedom-loving people. We are dealing with people more akin to Stalin and Mao.
I think the basis for release is multifactorial and, in part, likely a calculated gamble to hide how badly the present administration is doing. I believe it is geared for the elections (despite the time interval) but not just those on the federal level. I am prepared to see more of the same.
Trump LOST in 2020 because: 1. the majority of Americans didn’t vote for him in 2016; 2. the majority of Americans never approved of him in 4 years’ time; 3. he trashed our economy and relations with NATO, the EU and our allies; 4. he lied about the pandemic, causing it to be much worse than it had to be; 5. every poll predicted he would lose, which he did;
You can keep believing the Big Lie all you want to, but there’s no evidence that any “election irregularities” caused Trump’s loss: it was because a record number of Americans showed up to vote him out. We didn’t want him in the first place. The presidential election was corrupted by Trump: “I just need you to find 1,780 votes”…”I won by a lot”…the lies go on and on.
No one knows who released the draft. It could have been a janitor or one of the Justices. The source may not be discoverable: someone could have taken a paper copy lying on a desk, scanned it and sent it to Politico.. There may be no electronic trail. Anyway, why is the LEAK more important than ignoring 50 years of precedent? This is just another example of the Republican deflection away from the real issues.
PUPPET ALERT!
The Blog Stooge is an anti-abortion activist.
And he’s not about let liberals hi-jack this discussion.. So readers should expect an army of puppets on these threads today; expressing outrage that Alito’s opinion was leaked. Look for stupid names with stupid thoughts.
Puppets seen already include: Kos Felix, Francis H. White III, Mitchell, Warspite2, Helen Cunningham, Tomylotto and Roberta Schector.
Such civility. You’re a model of decorum.
Who’s Amit Jain?
Margot:
Some Repub activist thought it worthy to cast innuendo about a nasty comment this SCOTUS clerk (Jain) made about Brett Kavanaugh and the clerk’s relationship to the Politico “journalist” who leaked the opinion. It’s Salem Witchcraft stuff but it’s all very DC.
Mespo – Thanks for the skinny, the name is popping up, never heard of him/her? I suppose the real perp will eventually be revealed?
He may be the real perp.
He is a law clerk for Justice Sotomajor. While he was a student at Yale Law School, he criticized the school for its support of the Kavanaugh nomination (as did the vast majority of YLS students.) Based on that thin thread, someone on Twitter pointed the finger at him as the leaker. He’s probably being grilled by the FBI right now.
As others have noted, it is exceptionally curious that the leak is released “at the midnight hour” just prior to midterm elections, especially in states that Dems want to flip–like Ohio (I do not live in Ohio). I further note that on the 7:00 morning news today, (the widest audience, before people go to work/about their daily activities/to VOTE) national TV mainstream media (NBC, ABC) was quick to hint that this was to be blamed on “Trump’s appointees” to the Court (see, e.g., Pete Williams on NBC). Also today, print and Internet media are highlighting headlines and articles about the “resurg[ent]” move to add more Justices to the Court, -and the urgent need for Congressional need to “codify” Roe.
Scare tactics always work well. There is no bottom, no floor, to how low one side will go in its insidious creep toward annihilating any opposing opinion, view, stance, or political party–using media, academia, and political position to advance that effort.
May is not “just prior” to the midterms, which are in November. Perhaps you meant the primaries, not midterms?
You are correct, and thank you. But my comment, in toto, refers to both, as the issue over adding more Justices or codifying Roe refer to November midterm and beyond, not primaries.Thanks again for pointing that out.
Indeed, to further cement my comment, NBC just threw out (@11:35 a.m.) the possibility that next, SCOTUS might overturn same-sex marriage!
Alito dissented in Obergefell. He’d be happy for it to be illegal in many states.
Lin, it seems to me your comment fails to recognise that this decision would come out in the ordinary course in any event within at most two months. That would be closer to the midterm elections so it’s mobilising effect would then be greater, but still leave enough time to organise.
So I do not think this is election related. I think it more likely to have had three different motives, assuming it was done by a leftist:
1. Change the result by pressuring the justices;
2. Rekindle efforts to eliminate the filibuster generally, by proposing “must pass” Federal legislation to codify Roe/Casey; and
3. Instigate efforts to pack the court.
The draft opinion itself is a comprehensive dismantling of Roe/Casey. Assuming it remains largely intact, it will be interesting to see who joins and who concurs.
Roberts, for example, may concur in the result, but seek to preserve Roe/Casey by drawing a new line unrelated to viability, based on his theory of sufficient time to decide. I think that would largely be unworkable, but he may try anyway.
I do not think Thomas will join those parts of the opinion defending earlier substantive due process cases. It will be interesting to see how he deals with the implications of this decision, and it’s style of reasoning, for those cases.
The weakest part of the draft is the effort to distinguish this case from the earlier substantive due process decisions on the basis that this case is the only one to involve extinguishing life. While that is true, the opinion fails to explain why that difference is of constitutional significance. The right approach to this question is that if challenges to those earlier decisions arise, they should have to withstand the same stare decisis analysis as Roe/Casey underwent here. Whether they could survive that analysis could vary from case to case.
Daniel: Thanks for your comment. Actually I was referring to both primary and midterm (as noted in my follow-up comment at 11:29). Moreover, your 1,2,3, points parallel what I had said at 11:29.
I live in a large metropolis area, and virtually ALL of the primary TV commercials and mail advertising for candidates tout their standing on these constitutional and national issues, particularly abortion and border security. I believe the leak likewise ignites concern, so PRIMARY voters are called to arms to select candidates who may ultimately be responsible for congressional action. Makes no diff that the mobilizing effect will be greater in November. Indeed, the November midterms may well turn on which candidates were elected in the primaries. Bottom line: I do believe this is scare tactic/dog-whistling, therefore, “election-related,” but we both agree on 1,2,3.
Second, as to your comments on substantive law, I admit I was shocked that the draft opinion uses strong, explicit language intimating that “Roe and Casey must be overruled.” I would have liked to have seen that language tempered to reflect more of a refining, fine-tuning, of precedent that reflects state-of-the-art medical/scientific developments in the last 50 years concerning fetal viability, and corresponding “windows of opportunity” for women to decide. I believe the use of the words, “must be overruled” -IMHO, invokes the Left to point to politicization on the Court, and undermines stare decisis-they are both political triggers. I agree with your statement about Roberts, and I hope that such becomes the main thrust of the ultimate opinion. Thanks again.
Not sure that this is that relevant to the primaries, which are within parties not between them. Since virtually all Democrats now oppose overruling Roe, what impact on the primaries would the leaker be hoping for?
In at least two states (TX. AR), Democratic PRIMARIES in May (i.e.,”which are within parties not between them”) have pro- and anti-abortion candidates running against each other.
I don’t have time to research this, but I would think there may be more. States where more central, moderate Democrats could help to ultimately turn states blue, especially by wooing heavily-Catholic Hispanics…
p.s., the Democrats opposing abortion in the upcoming DEMOCRAT primaries are Cuellar (sp.?) in TX and Martin in AR.
In Texas, Cuellar (sp.?) narrowly defeated pro-abortion fellow-Democrat Cisneros (sp.?) last time around.
/sarc off
Look, abortion is a thorny issue. On one hand, an acorn certainly isn’t an oak tree and on the other it’s sheer ignorance to ignore the interests of one entity sharing the body of another. The traditional way was the “Quickening Test” (back to the times of Aquinas who knew a thing or two about everything important) that is to say if the baby was animated in the womb then it was worthy of protection. That didn’t work out so well with science so it made sense it had to go.
There is no right answer here so we have to do the best we can to get the best answer. The best place for this to play out is in the legisatures of the states where different methods and policies can be tested. That’s what Alito is saying in the leaked opinion. Roe v. Wade was a travesty of opinion-writing by making up constitutional rights (Douglas’ “penumbra” effect in Griswold comes to mind) out of whole cloth and creating a judge-made statute. That much is beyond doubt. Even pre-batty ol’ Larry Tribe has enough intelletual integrity for that obvious and inconvenient truth in 1973:
“One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” ~ Lawrence Tribe (Harvard Law Rev., 1973)
Mespo, if think Griswold was problematic, then you probably want to yank away birth control pills (in addition to abortion). That’s probably next. What a crowd pleaser that should be. ..Not. !!
Anonymous:
Wow /sarc of again today. I must be slipping:
Griswold was problematic and the correctness of the policy isn’t the issue. The issue is good law versus emotional law and the process to arrive at each. All good law is grounded in reason. I personally think abortion and birth control are worthy of nuanced protection but I also believe that using bad law to make it so undermines that protection rather than reinforces it. This is an intellectual and jurisprudence execise not one of personal rights. Not every worthwhile right is found in the Constitution, (try to find my right to good Scoth or my new obsession Maker’s Mark 46!) so we don’t need to rely on the Constitution solely to protect us – statutes and rules do just fine.
Mespo, yeah, we don’t need the Constitution for everything.
And let’s be honest, the so-called ‘Pro-Life’ movement has always been older Evangelicals who are basically Anti-Sex. And they ‘will’ attempt to take away birth control pills wherever possible.
The Utero-Americans screaming that they want complete control over their bodies, apparently have no idea how they’re getting pregnant. One has to be extremely careless, or stupid, or both, to get pregnant in this day and age.
Cindy Bragg:
Hey Cindy!! Bigger question is that if you can’t figure out what a woman is, how can you figure out her rights?
Mespo! I burst out laughing, thanks for the clever note.
mes………There ya go! LOL!
But I want to play on the girls team!
Independent Bob and Cindy Bragg – I just want to play with the girls/women. 😉
Paul Schulte………If the wimmins divide into 2 kick ball teams at recess, I promise my team will pick you first!
Cindy Braqg – you will not be disappointed. I was really good at mixed kickball. 🙂
Paul…..(:
Cindy, you don’t live in this day and age. Means nothing to ‘you’.
Every form of birth control fails. Women and girls are also sometimes raped, and women sometimes have abortions with wanted pregnancies, whether because the pregnancy is creating a serious health problem for the woman or because of embryonic/fetal diagnoses. More women and girls still die from pregnancy-related complications than from abortion. More to the point: even if a woman or girl gets pregnant through carelessness, she still has a right to decide whether to continue the pregnancy.
Anonymous, the American Taliban wants to punish women.
Anonymous:
I can’t believe I’m doing this but I agree with most of Anonymous’ thoughts up until the last sentence. There are valid therapeutic and emotional well-being reasons for abortion at certain intervals. For example, I have no problem with a so-called “morning after” pill. And I’m not for an outright ban but, that said, recreational and elective abortions CAN violate societal norms and ought to be regulated.
Mespo, there will always be a few ‘bad apples’ spoiling it for everyone. Don’t expect abortion users to be any different.
… she still has a right to decide whether to
continue the pregnancyterminate lifeFTFY
You and progressives on average either don’t know or care that the current threshold for a legal 3rd trimester abortion is ANY health complaint, e.g. a “headache,” stress, anything.
Master Stroke from DNC/Bolsheviks: discredit a major institution, lay popular foundation for violence and corrupted elections. History’s being written. High time to eradicate individual freedom, individual power over state power – high time to end this two hundred year aberration – Elite Lives Matter.
We do not know who leaked the draft and why.
We do not know who leaked the draft and why.
***********************
Tha much is spot on true (if a bit pedantic). People do things for lots of reasons rational and otherwise. Let’s wait and see but until then the betting continues!
It’s a mystery. It could be anyone for any reason. lol.
I suppose anything is possible, but I see no reason to believe that the current DOJ would take any action against the leaker even if there was clear evidence of criminality. Rule of law is dead and this Administration killed it.
Missing in the debate is the 9th Amendment. In order to have small, limited and non-intrusive government – which Conservatives claim to stand for – the Framers of the Constitution created the 9th Amendment.
The Framers were concerned by power-hungry leaders assuming “unnamed” rights. Since it’s impossible to list all rights, the 9th Amendment deferred to the citizens NOT the government. Government was stay out of our bedrooms, personal affairs and out of women’s wombs.
The 9th Amendment actually benefits Conservatives also by protecting some gun rights like hunting or target shooting, etc.
The 9th Amendment might be missing in any debate you have had but it is covered in detail in the leaked draft (as to why it cannot be used to create a right does not exist historically or otherwise)
So when faced with a draft that takes rights away from tens of millions of women — with an argument women shouldn’t have rights today because it wasn’t the custom in this country for men to grant rights to women — Turley is silent.
Nor is that the full extent of Alito’s argument in the draft. Mark Joseph Stern: “Alito’s draft opinion explicitly criticizes Lawrence v. Texas (legalizing sodomy) and Obergefell v. Hodges (legalizing same-sex marriage). He says that, like abortion, these decisions protect phony rights that are not “deeply rooted in history.””
Yes, it’s serious that someone leaked the draft. But the content of the draft is more serious than the leak, and Turley’s unwillingess to write about Alito’s argument is … curious.
“So when faced with a draft that takes rights away from tens of millions of women — with an argument women shouldn’t have rights today because it wasn’t the custom in this country for men to grant rights to women — Turley is silent.”
**************************************
Yeah, you’re qualified to critique the opinions of Supreme Court Justices. What’s you thought on quantum physics?
Stern is wrong. The draft opinion explicitly distinguishes all the other substantive due process decisions, on the basis that only abortion involves the extinguishing of life. You can disagree with the validity or persuasiveness of that distinction, but it is simply wrong to say that this opinion explicitly questions the continuing validity of the earlier substantive due process decisions.
No, what Stern actually wrote is correct, and you can look to Alito’s dissent in Obergefell for more details.
Dissenting in an earlier case is different from saying that this decision overturns that earlier one. The draft opinion says at least twice that this case has no bearing on the earlier cases, because only this case involves extinguishing life.
Stern didn’t claim that this overturns Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges.
He said Nor “Alito’s draft opinion explicitly criticizes Lawrence v. Texas (legalizing sodomy) and Obergefell v. Hodges (legalizing same-sex marriage).”
Stern also said that Alito “says that, like abortion, these decisions [in Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges] protect phony rights that are not “deeply rooted in history.””
Both of Stern’s actual claims are true.
Taking a right away from the federal government (which the constitution didn’t grant them) and giving it to the people through the states (which the constitution granted them) is NOT taking rights away from women. The supreme court didn’t say women don’t have the right to abortion, they said that right is not in the constitution, and is not banned by the constitution, so let the people decide through their representatives.
I thought y’all hated tyranny of the federal government?
Yes, they did hate it until they became the government and now they love it. Tyranny for all and you better like it.
Don’t pretend to know what I hate.
Just as no one can force you to donate bone marrow or even blood to save another human being’s life, women cannot be forced to donate the use of their uterus to save the life of an embryo. People have a right to control the use of their own bodies. Women are people; hence, states cannot take away women’s right to control the use of their own bodies. This is not an issue to leave to state legislatures.
No, better to see it as the woman voluntarily ceded the sole use rights to her body when she got pregnant.
“Don’t pretend to know what I hate.”
As an anonymous poster, you don’t exist so anyone can say what you hate or don’t hate. It is that simple.
So you believe that you don’t exist.
That explains a lot.
She didn’t.
Your argument would justify a woman’s right to starve her newborn infant because feeding it requires her to use her body.
So you’re not aware that infants can be fed by another lactating woman and can also be fed with formula, got it.
Lol. The whole “my body, my choice” to borrow from Cheech and Chong is “up in smoke” due to vaccine mandates where individuals did not have a choice in getting them.
Constitutionally, but tragically not for a babies right to life, this issue resides with the states to govern as they see fit as it should be.
Lol. The whole “my body, my choice” to borrow from Cheech and Chong is “up in smoke” due to vaccine mandates where individuals did not have a choice in getting them.
Constitutionally, but tragically not for a babies right to life, this issue resides with the states to govern as they see fit as it should be.
The vaccine mandates still leave the choice to the individual. No one is holding anyone down and forcing them to be vaccinated. People make their individual choice and accept the side-effects, which might include things like being booted from a government job.
It is no more fit for states to be able to outlaw elective abortions prior to viability than for states to be able to outlaw interracial marriage, which was also allowed for a long time.
Kos Felix, we never heard of you. Just popped out of nowhere??
“. . . that right is not in the constitution . . .”
Neither is the right to eat, sleep, jog.
The Constitution is not a comprehensive list of rights (or of private citizen permissions). It limits the government’s power (federal or state). Unless the Constitution expressly permits it (e.g., government controlling a woman’s body, future, happiness), then government (federal, state, or local) cannot use its police powers for that purpose.
Good post Kos!
This decision makes it clear that aborting babies is not a right. Reread your post with ‘convenience’ in place of ‘right’.
We can only hope the phony rights are removed next.
The leak is far more serious than the draft itself.
You are correct, the leak is more serious of an issue than the draft. It is unfortunate that someone thought they had the right to release a preliminary draft. I abhor the release either by the conservative or liberal clerks or justices for purely political reasons. Our republic has just gotten closer to mob rule.
“If a suspect lies to the FBI, there could be prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 1001.” This presumes there will be a legitimate investigation. From the Garland DOJ, I have my doubts. If this was an orchestrated leak, as many suggest, there will be an investigation in name only, and no prosecutions.
“Orchestrated”?
By whom?
How about just a quick lineup with 2 minutes of questions for all who had access. Any that don’t positively aver their innocence are not suitable to work in the courts; whether it be one or dozens.
It’s not a federal court’s decision, it’s not a states’ rights issue, it’s a child’s life and their God given right to life. This life is what must be put first in all of this.
Do you believe in the First Amendment?
The government cannot force people to live according to your personal religious beliefs.
You believe that an embryo has a “God given right to life.” I do not.
My personal religious believes have nothing to do with a child’s right to life. Do you have a right to life? Or can it be extinguished at any time? And at what age did you obtain this right to life?
There are many forms of contraceptives easily available, many of them for free. ‘The Pill’ is 99.9% effective in preventing pregnancy.
You’re the one who said “God given right to life,” so it’s odd to now claim that your “personal religious believes have nothing to do with” it.
Your attempt to analogize it to me as an individual fails. I am not living inside someone else’s body, getting my oxygen through their lungs, getting my nutrition through their gastrointestinal system, …
Contraceptive pills have serious side-effects and are medically contraindicated for many women and girls. A woman who is not sexually active can be raped. A woman may have an abortion with a wanted pregnancy for medical reasons. So don’t pretend that the pill resolves this. It would be more effective to give men vasectomies after allowing them to store their sperm if they want. But of course you wouldn’t dream of doing that. Nor should you: men should have control over their bodies. So should women.
Use your infinite wisdom right now or prove you are a fraud and a liar: Exactly what differentiates your “humanity” from that of a one-celled human being (a zygote?) Be specific. Use common language or scientific, it’s your choice.
Mitchell says:
“it’s a child’s life and their God given right to life. This life is what must be put first in all of this.”
Science says it’s not a life until viability. I will never accept the religious belief that life begins at inception.
No, it doesnt. SCOTUS did. Gimme a break. Murder a pre-viability pregnant woman and see how many murders you are charged with. Or does science change based on who does the killing?
The media is being too optimistic that this leak had to originate with one of only 45 persons (with access to the draft). For several months the Court has been conducting business remotely. This means that in addition to on-site IT support staff with legitimate access to the Justices and Clerks computers / network, there is the possibility that an ‘outside’ hacker has gained improper access to email or other tech resources of any one of the 45 people with legitimate access to the draft opinion.
It’s nothing but a Diversion. Why now, You never pass up an opportunity to change a narrative when you are loosing. The votes in Mid Term Elections are not looking good for the Donkeys, so what do you do? You create that opportunity. But have faith, the sun is going to come up tomorrow, Biden will still be President, gas will still be over $5 gal. and this too will pass.
I agree. This is a well timed subversive action. It will send masses of “mostly peaceful demonstrators” into the streets in a remake of Summer 2020. It will certainly gin up the heretofore lagging support of the Democrat faithful. Not to be too conspiracy-theoretical, but … it could be used to justify certain electoral methods and procedures just like covid was used in 2020.
Helen, your comment sounds like something the Blog Stooge would write.
I’ve never been able to decide if you are a troll or just a plain old idiot.