Leaked Draft Opinion Rocks the Court and Washington

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.

444 thoughts on “Leaked Draft Opinion Rocks the Court and Washington”

  1. JT: “the damage done to the Court as an institution will likely be lasting.” The “Court’s” integrity and credibility were shredded long ago, and this snafu is merely cumulative. The real issue is Alito’s breathtaking observation that the word “abortion” is not mentioned in COTUS. And I can just imagine the quizzical look James Madison would give him. Under HIS 9/10Am, it was absent BY DESIGN.


    Some would argue that the right to an abortion is fundamental. Others respectfully disagree. Personally, I could care less. But no one has ever articulated where a distinction is drawn in the Constitution between fundamental and non-fundamental rights, or how judges can reliably tell the difference.

    James Madison would have found the distinction nonsensical. In introducing his draft of our Bill of Rights to the House of Representatives, he explained that he consciously avoided attempting to enumerate all the rights retained by the people, arguing that

    ….by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution. [1 Annals of Congress 456 (1789) (remarks of Rep. Madison).]

    The clause Rep. Madison refers to reads as follows:

    “The exceptions here or elsewhere in the Constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.” [Id. at 452.]

    This is the Rosetta Stone for interpretation of our modern-day Ninth and Tenth Amendments. While the Ninth doesn’t create rights, it is a constitutionally mandated canon of construction, prohibiting judges from interpreting the Constitution in any manner that would “deny or disparage [unenumerated rights] retained by the people,” U.S. Const, amend. IX, and the Tenth is an express reservation of powers to “the States respectively, or to the people.” Id. amend. X. As such, government can only infringe upon those rights that were willingly relinquished by the people, and only when needed in order to discharge its legitimate duties as our authorized agents. Professor Barnett refers to this foundational concept as “the presumption of liberty.” Randy Barnett, Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty (2004).

    1. That is a really good argument against originalist and textualist interpretation of the constitution.

  2. Maybe leaker was a student at Tomsk State University for their (equivalent of a) Master’s thesis.

    NB: Tomsk State University is the FSB run school…

  3. I hope they are able to determine the leaker through the internal investigation and if so they need to be disbarred and publicly shamed.

    If not, I think you threaten the entire SCOTUS staff with firing unless the responsible party comes forward or someone provides absolutely determinant proof of the leaker. It will be very sad if all are fired .. and then the leaker can live with their ignominy and likely hatred from their colleagues.

    They deserve it for their efforts to break down the civil society and our institutions as well as their ignition of an insurrection!
    If it follows the Left’s last 2 years of destructive and unpeaceful protest, expect cities and businesses to burn ala BLM.

    The Left only knows destruction.

    1. Suburbanwoman says:

      “The Left only knows destruction.”

      You stole that line from Turley, didn’t you?

      1. you steal ’em all the time, especially when you revert to anonymous

  4. One would think that The Washington Post would have warned the lawyer who leaked the material that his actions might cause the loss of his ability to practice the law. I guess their visions of Pulitzers clouded their vision. Then again, it’s certain that they just don’t give a damn about other peoples careers as long as their careers are advanced. This from the people who often tell us how much they care about other people.

    1. Stooge, no one cares about the careers of Federalist judges. They’re at war with the country.

      1. Anonymous, there are nine Federalist judges. There have been a number of cases recently that have gone eight to one. Are the Federalist judges who were appointed by Democratic Presidents at war with the country. It seems to me that when we look at the opinions of the American people displayed in the polling that you are at odds with the majority of the American populace. It must follow then that you are the one who is at war the country. I know, reality is do hard.

  5. “The Roe v Wade decision leak has damaged the Supreme Court.”

    – Professor Turley

    The Supreme Court has damaged, nay, destroyed the rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities of Americans, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, since 1860. The judicial branch has no power to legislate, modify legislation, or modify legislation by “interpretation,” which is inherent in the oath sworn by Justices, to “support” the “manifest tenor” of the literal English words of the Constitution. The sole charge of the Supreme Court and judicial branch is to assure that actions comport with statutory and fundamental law – not to write law or dictate from the bench.

    The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

    Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual welfare, specific welfare, redistribution of wealth or charity. The same article provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute, allowing Congress no power to “claim or exercise” dominion over private property, the sole exception being the power to “take” private property for public use.

    Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals, while it is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating the maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure.

    Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.

    The Supreme Court may have been damaged.

    The Supreme Court must have been impeached…

    together with most of the judicial branch for “legislating from the bench,” abuse of power, usurpation of power, gross dereliction, gross negligence, subversion, and, in that the last 162 years of communization has America “…adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort…,” treason.

      1. Did you have a citation and a point?

        I don’t have a “view,” I read the English language words of the Constitution.

        You apply your desires and your biases, and read (i.e. write) between the lines as “interpretation” while you “legislate from your mom’s basement.”

  6. What a convenient time to do another psy-op event to induce outrage, division, and support for the Democratic Party, regardless of the damage done to the US by contemporary politicians.

    1. Starheart, we’ve never seen you before. Just popped out of nowhere?

      1. Oh boy. Here comes another conspiracy theory by Anonymous thinking that anyone new who is in opposition to her thinking must actually be the same person as all the other trolls. They’re coming to take her away ho ha. They’re coming to take her away. They’re coming to take her away ho ha. THEY’RE COMING TO TAKE HER AWAY.

  7. Remember there was a guy in the Trump administration that had an op-ed piece published in the NY Times under the name Anonymous and he had a few minutes of hidden fame and glory due to his “resistance”. Mr. Anonymous was supposedly a high ranking official in administration and DC was all aflutter. It then turned out he was a low level loser who nobody, and I mean nobody had ever heard of before his cowardly action. Of course CNN gave him a job, even though he lied on air to Anderson Cooper, and he had another minute of fame. Of course his utility ended, his fame ended and a challenge any of you to even remember his name.

    The above brings me to the traitorous leaker in the case at hand. This person will have it harder than Mr. Anonymous because he or she is most likely an attorney about to be disbarred and possible even arrested. Mr. Anonymous didn’t break any laws, he just was a disloyal and disgusting wannabe striving for attention. The leaker will have some fame and then this affair will be forgotten by the next big story and the Dems getting defeated in November. His usefulness will be gone, his law license will be gone and his career will be over before it started.

    Imagine getting a clerkship to the SCOTUS, thinking you were more important than it’s standards and norms and throwing it all away in a fit of pique. This is the young generation, they want it and they want it now. He probably went to Yale and now he will not even have a law license.

  8. Enigma asks whether birth control is next to be outlawed. I don’t think birth control goes far enough for Evangelicals. Think *bundling bags.*

    1. They have already made plans JT go further.

      “ Seago said stopping corporations from paying for abortion-related expenses and travel is another priority, along with expanding support for pregnant people, such as as supporting college students who are pregnant.”


      It won’t be surprising when they start getting greedy with their “agenda”.

      1. When was the last time you had sex with a woman, if ever? The drag queen in West Hollywood weighing 300 lbs does not count

      2. Wow.

        That is almost as batshit insane as stopping corporations from providing goods and services to people who refused to take one particular vaccine!

  9. Agreed that the source(s) must be vigorously pursued. The problem is to whom does the Court turn to ferret out the leaker and any co-conspirators. The FBI of FISA filings integrity, Carter Page pursuit, Alfa Bank, James Comey et al fame and Steele Dossier fame? The National Intelligence community of 50 intelligence officials averring that the Hunter Biden laptop is a Russian disinformation plant, Steele dossier, etc. fame? So we move on to the Merrick Garland DOJ that is stonewalling the appointing of a special counsel in the face of evidence that there may be potentially impeachment triggering material swirling around Hunter Biden’s laptop? Perhaps the Court can bring in an outside law firm granting them plenary authority to investigate. Other recommendations? If a justice is found to be involved in the leak can the Court initiate impeachment proceedings or must they rely on the Pelosi-led House?

  10. For 2+ years the Left have pushed, forced, and coerced Americans to undergo COVID vaccines. Thus one has to appreciate their theater that now, suddenly, they appeal to bodily autonomy arguments

    1. So, it only applies when YOU need it. And you whine about hypocrisy?

      1. So says the gal who argues about the definition of a woman.

    2. No one has attempted to make it illegal to refuse to be vaccinated.

      No one has attempted to make it illegal for a healthcare provider to vaccinate people who wish to be vaccinated.

      Your “analogy” falls apart on inspection.

      1. Dictators don’t make everything illegal. They manage to use other things to get the same result.

        Once again, you are spinning. The government had to be stopped by the courts from forcing private industry to fire people not vaccinated.

        Anonymous the Stupid always provides a choice. ‘Your money or your life.’ Enough, ATS, you need not display anymore of your sickness.

  11. I predict that medical science will eventually discover a way to prevent unwanted pregnancies and finally put an end to the practice of abortion for the millions of women that suddenly discover their uterus has somehow been violated. With the Covid pandemic that reportedly killed @600k people, we got lockdowns, double-masking and forced vaccinations. Why doesn’t the death of millions of unborn babies prompt the medical community to move at “warp speed” to find a way to slow this deadly phenomenon? Perhaps social distancing between the sexes. Instead of double-masking, condoms might be an option. Instead of vaccines, perhaps they could come up with a pill that might prevent pregnancy. Instead of lockdowns, there’s always the choice of abstinence. We need Fauci now more than ever.

    1. Olly,

      First, they are not unborn babies. Second, bundling bags are the best contraception.

      1. What a vile comment. That you would encourage someone else to commit suicide means you’re badly in need of psychiatric help. I hope you seek it.

      2. What are they then, Martians?? You people should take up SCIENCE.

  12. Privacy to think, a right to choose, and a rite of human sacrifice for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes.

    Demos-cracy is aborted in darkness, under a veil of privacy, at The Twilight Fringe (i.e. “penumbras and emanations”, conflation of logical domains).

  13. 2002-2003 Basically PRO SE against ALL ODDS in Denver Federal Court I “won” a Dismissal With Prejudice against my former employer MASSIVE USG / IC “STRATEGIC PARTNER” Tele Tech Holdings / Tele Tech Government Solutions (“DOG” Digital Original Gangster” and its UBER POWERFUL law/LOBBY firm Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber & Schreck with unlimited access to economic resources and POWERFUL political connections… after the judge tried to convince me that I was wasting everyone’s time. AFTER my “WIN” things got overwhelming worse! / The presiding judge asked me in private after the dismissal why I wasn’t a lawyer… thinking that was a compliment! – What I learned is that A JUDGE IS A POLITICIAN THAT WEARS A BLACK ROBE ON A RETAINER!!! — Peace. Mark J. Novitsky http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/117qas9x/colorado-district-court/teletech-hold-inc-et-al-v-novitsky-et-al/ — Last check over 2,600 recorded views… for some reason

    1. Show me a pro se litigant, and I’ll show you someone who ran out of money to pay lawyers. And to not put too fine a spin on it, federal courts treat these unfortunates like black men at a Woolworth’s lunch counter. According to retired District Judge Nancy Gertner, judges are quite literally trained on “how you get rid of [pro se civil rights] cases.” Judge Mark Bennett of the Northern District of Iowa earned the nickname “The Terminator” for summarily dismissing pro se employment law cases. Retired Judge Richard Posner recently took Judge David Faber of the District of Maryland to task for cutting and pasting “his” opinion in a pro se case from the Government’s brief. Reply Brief, Bond v. United States, No. 17-2150 (4th Cir. Filed May 14, 2018). But the undisputed champion of judicial laziness Judge Robert Blackburn of the District of Colorado, who routinely shunts pro se cases to magistrates with apparent directions to get rid of them and then failing to review them, issuing opinions bearing zero objective evidence that he had performed his statutory duty. E.g., Cogswell v. United States Senate, No. 08-cv-01929-REB-MEH (D.Colo. Mar. 2, 2009), Shell v. Devries, No. 06-cv-00318-REB-BNB (D.Colo. Jan. 30, 2007), Signer v. Pimkova, No. 05-cv-02039-REB-MJW (D.Colo. Nov. 30, 2006), Smith v. United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, No. 04-RB-1222 (OES) (Oct. 15, 2004).

      It doesn’t matter whether you are a prisoner and high-school dropout, or a seasoned litigator. It is a common rhetorical device for federal judges to fraudulently portray the submissions of pro se litigants as muddled and unfocused, including John Cogswell, a graduate of Yale and Georgetown School of Law with some forty years’ experience at bar. He sued the Senate for its failure to confirm judges on a timely basis—the District of Colorado was less than half-staffed, due to the usual partisan wrangling. It was a novel question with facial merit, as to deny access to the courts is to deny citizens their rights. But Blackburn summarily dismissed the lawsuit, claiming that Cogswell’s objections were “ponderous and without merit.” Blackburn’s ruling was boilerplate, boiling down to “Because I SAID so!”:

      “As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the recommendation to which objections have been filed, and have considered carefully the recommendation, objections, and applicable caselaw. Even though plaintiff is a licensed attorney, in an abundance of caution because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, I have construed his pleadings more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 ___, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Belmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,520-21 (1972)). The recommen- dations are detailed and well-reasoned. Contrastingly, plaintiff’s Objections are imponderous and without merit.”

      It was an interesting case. He sued the Senate for failing to adequately stock the District of Colorado, asserting that it denied him the right of access to the courts. But “pro se” is the kiss of death in what passes for our courts.

  14. Jonathan: There is more in the news besides leaks from the Supreme Court. Trump just announced he’ll be at the Kentucky Derby on Saturday. Last Saturday Trump decided to skip the WH correspondent’s dinner–again. We all know why. It gets under his thin skin when people make fun of him. Didn’t stop Pres. Biden from attending this year–who engaged in self deprecating humor . Biden also mentioned Trump in talking about 2 years of Covid: “Just imagine if my predecessor came to this dinner this year, now that would really have been a real coup…”.

    But showing up for the Derby will prove more lucrative for Trump than schmoozing with journalists. The Board of Directors of “MagaAgain”, Trump’s PAC, say for a donation of $75,000 you’ll get to shake Trump’s hand. Who wouldn’t want to take advantage of this unique opportunity? Well, probably most Kentuckians who median income is less that $30 K per year. Naturally, Trump’s appeal is limited to the well-heeled who like to watch the ponies–which kind of makes a mockery of Trump’s oft repeated claim he is a “man of the people”. The stark class differences will be on full display when Trump shows up on Saturday. Would you miss that opportunity without tuning in on your local TV channel?

    1. The last time Trump went to the correspondents dinner he got so pissed off he ran for president.

  15. The leaker has visions of appearing on CNN and MSNBC. Of course he will be handsomely paid for his appearances. Watch for the forthcoming book telling us all about his act of heroism. One can only hope that he will be writing his new book from a jail cell. Just when you think the leftists can’t stoop any lower they prove you wrong.

    1. TiT,

      I’m a NeverTrumper, and I was one of the first here to comment that this leak was atrocious. I’ve not read the draft, and I won’t until the formal opinion is handed down.

      Turley stated on Fox that one cannot make any assumptions about the exact motivations of the leaker. He expressed no opinion on the merits of the decision.

  16. It is entertaining to see that the Left suddenly know what a woman is now.

    1. Estovir – SCOTUS had to define “woman” before that idiot woman gets on the court.

      1. Oh Paul, com on man! I’m sure she’s a childbearing creature of the swamp.

      2. The only “idiot woman” was that wrinkled up hillbilly hag from Tennessee who got put-down when she tried a “gotcha” question on Judge Jackson, who was wise enough not to take the bait. She knew that the question was designed to create a sound bite for Fox, and she demurred.

  17. While the commentary here quickly turned from the professor’s post (about the propriety of a LEAK) to overwhelming expressions of anti-abortion/pro-abortion thought, they are related.
    Once the identity of the ‘leaker’ is revealed, the true purpose behind the leak will demand equal commentary.

  18. Jonathan: Congratulations. 58 million views of your blogs and counting. Impressive number. The question is why so few actually take the time to comment. I suspect part of the reason is that most conservative content can be seen on Fox 24/7. Whatever is Rupert Murdock’s talking point of the day will find its way into one of your columns. Who needs you when we can dial in Fox. Prime example. This blog mirrors your appearance yesterday on Laura Ingraham’s show regarding the leak of a draft opinion by the conservative majority that will overturn Roe. Ingraham suggested, without any evidence, that the leak came from a liberal Court clerk. Other conservatives, like Alan Dershowitz, have suggested the leak was intended to whip up opposition to the opinion. Ingraham demanded the Chief Justice and the FBI drag out every clerk to find the leaker. You echoed Ingraham’s views by saying the leak is the “greatest crisis” of Robert’s career–and the “original sin” of judicial ethics. Within 24 hours you dutifully authored this column.

    Now you could have pushed back on Ingraham’s suggestion the leaker was a liberal clerk. There is no evidence to support her claim. But you didn’t because that would have contradicted the Murdock/Ingraham talking point–that liberals are trying to sabotage any attempt to overturn Roe. Of course, it’s no secret the conservative majority intends to overturn Roe. They made that clear in oral arguments. The real threat to the integrity of the SC has nothing to do with the leak, as you claim. The real threat comes from the rightward thrust of the majority–its attempt to politicize the Court’s work in favor of right-wing ideology. Polls show most Americans no long view the Court as a fair arbiter. Clarence Thomas is the poster child for the Court’s refusal to apply the rule against overt conflicts of interest in deciding cases. Thomas would be required to recuse in many cases at the lower federal court level. Now the conservative majority wants to disregard a 48 yr. old precedent–rolling back reproductive rights and taking away the right of every woman to decide whether to have a child. This is part of the GOP agenda that wants to pass a national ban on abortion if they win back control of Congress. For the GOP overturning Roe will be the gift that keeps on giving. This will not be lost on women who make up half the population.

    1. Dennis, if you dislike Turley so much, and his blog just reflects Fox news, the real question is why do you submit to daily outrage? Sounds like masochism. I am not sure if idiot Lawrence Tribe has a blog, but if he does, I would never be a part of it. If I want to get pissed off I can just turn on msnbc for about 2 minutes. I tried during the Afghanistan debacle, but I got tired of being asked not to believe my own eyes. Don’t need to type out my feelings.

      1. Paul: I endure the “daily outrage”, not because I am a masochist, but I want to see what the opposition has to say and offer an alternative take on the news. I don’t subscribe to liberal or left-wing blogs. It’s a waste of time tp preach to the choir. There is an old saying, attributed to Sun-Tzu: “Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer”. So I watch Fox and read Turley’s columns because he is the leading conservative constitutional “authority” and Fox’s go to “legal analyst”. I, unlike many of you on the right, actually believe in free expression–the interchange of opposing POVs. That’s good for a vibrant Democracy. I suspect you would prefer Natacha, Anonymous (the other one) and me get off this blog. Ain’t going to happen! You might learn something by stop looking in the mirror for continued self-affirmation.

        1. Dennis McIntyre: Ah, but you don’t just “see what the opposition has to say and offer an alternative take on the news.”
          WIth pseudo-superiority, you attempt to condescend, ridicule, satirize, discredit, and otherwise undercut what the Professor says. Perhaps you need to look in the mirror yourself..It certainly appears that you love to see your name in print. Let’s look at real motives, eh?…

          1. And with pseudo-superiority, you attempt to condescend, ridicule, satirize, discredit, and otherwise undercut those you disagree with.

        2. Dennis, I have stated in the past that my wish is that you, Natacha, JeffSilberman and Anonymous remain on this blog. I appreciate that you are posting your views right out in the open. Unlike other members of your philosophy who first try to tell us that things like CRT, the Hunter Laptop, teaching white children that they are born a racist don’t actually exist. You stand loud and proud to tell us that you agree with all these things. You stand loud and proud to tell us that Jr. high school kids should be taught all about how to give a blow job. You stand loud and proud to tell us that Drag Queens should be teaching our elementary school children. https://www.dragqueenstoryhour.org/. So many of these things have been done in secrecy but you stand loud and proud for your philosophy of life. It is vitally important that people with your views can post on this blog so that all of us can understand who you are. Thank you for not hiding in the shadows like so many of your compatriots have done. Please keep on blogging.

          1. Who appointed you to be the hall monitor for this blog? You don’t speak for me at all–CRT isn’t taught on the grade school level, no matter how many times you say that it is, it’s still a lie. And the “teaching white children that they are born a racist” doesn’t happen, either, at least in schools. The “Hunter Laptop” scandal stinks to high heaven, and no criminal charges have been forthcoming. This is just another red herring to deflect away from the seriously bad things done by people like Greene, Cawthorn, Jones, and DeSantis, plus the crimes uncovered by the Jan 6th Commission. What are the crimes proven by the laptop, and how does this implicate Joe Biden? You can’t say, and even Turley says that influence peddling isn’t illegal. I’ve never said Jr. high students should be taught sexual techniques, and I don’t care about drag queens, either–except to note that they are probably better people than you are. You don’t know anything about me or my “philosophy of life”, and harping about my disagreement with the culture wars that are pounded out daily by OAN, News Max, Fox, Culture Wars and Breitbart as a deflection against all of the outrageous things Trump and the Republicans are doing and have done doesn’t establish anything other than the fact that you are gullible. You don’t speak for “all of us”, either–that’s more of the indoctrination done by alt-right: convince the disciples that they speak for the majority, which they don’t.

        3. Dennis,
          I went against my instinct and decided to engage with a maniacal simpleton. My mistake. I won’t do it again. And if you ever read anything that I have wrote,
          you would know I would never advocate for anyone being thrown off this blog, I am totally against any form of censorship unless it specifically calls for violence.
          Interesting that you consider Fox and Turley ” enemies”. I thought you liberals were the bastions of tolerance.
          I have engaged in respectful discourse with a few on “your side”. like Jeff and the other Anonymous ( I guess). I never look for affirmation. Self or otherwise.
          And your grade school crack about the mirror is weak. You sound like a man who when he needs to relieve himself, uses a stall when a urinal is available.
          Confidence problem?

  19. Possible SC decision is being grossly misrepresented. Tragically it is not about ending abortion, but about returning decisions on abortion and limitations to abortion to the states. In many states abortion will continue to be legal and in some states no limits placed on time of abortion will still be legal.

    1. What other federal rights do you want turned over to the states?

      The right for consenting adults to decide who their sexual partners will be?

      The right to use contraception?

      The right to marry interracially?

        1. Thanks for again putting your ignorance on display. People have federal rights, state rights, common law rights, …

    2. States don’t get to decide whether its citizens are allowed to enjoy a right guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This is why we are the UNITED States of America–not a coalition of separate countries. If states can outlaw abortion or curtail it beyond the limits set by Roe, then they can outlaw same-sex marriage, inter-racial marriage, and contraception, because all of these rights rely on the same legal precedent that the majority of the SCOTUS just ignored.

  20. Turley has officially jumped the shark, and IMHO, there’s no going back. Let’s see, now: Turley’s shorts are in a twist because of the LEAK, which he calls “disgraceful”, an affront to “long tradition”, “deeply unethical”, a “reckless act to violate court rules”, and he talks about the potential of the perpetrator lying to the FBI and being prosecuted for doing so. BUT, he doesn’t address the implications of the SCOTUS reversing the rule of law relied upon by citizens for half a century, and instead is now allowing states to decide whether someone has Constitutional rights. The flimsy excuse for this outrageous ruling is reliance on abortion not being specifically listed in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. On that note, the Fourth Amendment protects privacy in individuals’ persons and papers, but it doesn’t say anything about the government tapping your phone or hacking your computer, so I guess now the government can spy on you without getting a warrant or showing probable cause since examining computers and telephones are not specifically prohibited by the Bill of Rights or Constitution. The point is that as a citizen you have RIGHTS which no state can take away from you, and which the SCOTUS is duty-bound to protect. We are a UNITED States of America, not a coalition of separate countries, and our guiding principles that are spelled out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights apply to all 50 states. Your rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights regardless of whether you live in California or Alabama.

    First of all, is it illegal to leak a draft SCOTUS opinion? Turley doesn’t cite any statute addressing this, but talks about violation of a “long tradition”, so I’m guessing leaking isn’t a violation of any law, but anyway, Turley wasn’t so bent out of shape when Flynn lied to the FBI, and what he did was more fundamentally wrong than leaking a draft SCOTUS opinion. From Turley’s perspective, I guess it depends on who’s doing the lying to the FBI. What if it turns out to be one of the Justices, which certainly isn’t impossible? This pearl-clutching of Turley’s, focusing on the leak and ignoring the context and implications, is calculated to emphasize the wrongness of the leak, so the disciples won’t think about the implications of the ruling itself.

    Turley wants to talk about what is “disgraceful”, “deeply unethical”, “reckless” and a violation of SCOTUS rules. Well, how about Kavanaugh, Barrett, Alito and Gorsuch: 1. lying about their view of Roe during their confirmation hearings; 2. refusing to honor stare decisis, which is truly a “long tradition”. Roe has been settled law for nearly 50 years. So now, if the Constitution and Bill of Rights don’t protect a woman’s right to choose, what other rights are circling the drain? Clearly, using the same logic, there is no reason why states couldn’t reinstate miscegenation laws, outlawing interracial marriage–Loving v. Virginia. We could also go back to Griswold v. Connecticut, outlawing contraception, even the teaching of contraception methods, even for married couples. Obergfell, which sanctioned same-sex marriage, is also at risk.

    What Turley and Levin are REALLY upset about is that this ruling will energize the populace to get out and vote like never before — and they know it. The majority of the judges on the SCOTUS were appointed by presidents who LOST the popular vote, so their views do not align with the majority of Americans. In the case of Trump, who appointed Kavanaugh, Barrett and Gorsuch, he actually cheated to get into office, and he promised to deliver anti-Roe judges, which is exactly what happened. Their confirmation hearings consisted of little cat and mouse games, tap dancing around Roe, but the worst that everyone feared has come to pass. So now, the big November sweep Republicans were counting on isn’t likely to happen. Young people, black and brown people, gay people and those who believe in individual rights will not sit this one out. THAT’s really what Turley’s shorts are in a twist over.

    1. Natacha, you should become a writer for CNN because like CNN your popularity is down 43%. The point of the matter is that when the leaker took the job he agreed that the writings of the court should remain confidential until the were released by the court. What we have here is an ethical issue. Something that you have no knowledge of as proven by your daily diatribes. All good lawyers are taught the importance of ethics. We understand your approach because the word ethics is not in your vocabulary.

      1. No, the “point of the matter” isn’t the leak–the final opinion would have come out next month, anyway. Honestly, why is leaking an early draft of an earth-shattering opinion a fundamentally bad or immoral thing in and of itself? The draft reflects what the end ruling is likely going to be, except for fine-tuning some references, citations and language, and the SCOTUS works for the American people, so we found out about it early. So what? The “point of the matter” is the intellectual dishonesty of Kavanaugh, Barrett, Gorsuch and Alito, who all lied when they would honor stare decisis, but planned all along to find a way to reverse the right of abortion prior to fetal viability. The “point of the matter” is the flimsy grounds they relied on–that abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, but neither are other long-recognized rights. The “point of the matter” is the possible cascade of rights relied on by Americans that states could outlaw, such as same-sex marriage, contraception, and inter-racial marriage, all of which rely on the same logic, and none of which are listed in either the Constitution or Bill of Rights either. The “point of the matter” is that the majority of the judges on the SCOTUS were nominated by presidents who LOST the popular vote, and therefore, their views are not representative of the majority of the American people. More fallout from Trump, the most-destructive person ever to occupy the White House. People are rightfully outraged, and they WILL show up to vote in November.

        1. You do realize no one reads your comments, right? Yours are one of the few that people just scroll past because …well, if you dont realize by now that we consider you irrelevant, you never will

          1. This icon doesn’t match the Svelaz one above….hummmm. Whoever this really is–who appointed you to speak for “people” or what they find “relevant’? You can’t handle facts, and that’s your problem.

            1. Only original owners know their email assigned Gravatar icon. You took the bait

              Thanks for confirming you are as stupid as everyone says.


              1. The Gravatar icon is clearly visible and is unique to each poster. I know people have impersonated Svelaz and me also on this blog. You also don’t speak for “everyone”.

        2. I get so sick of your sideways logic on just about every issue. Yes, the uninformed one issue voters will show up, as drawn up in the plan. Stare Decisis, no one said that was the final word on anything, you are a liar. WTF has viability got to do with it??? That just makes you lefties feel good about Roe. Why doesn’t the constitution protect abortion (privacy) until the moment of live birth? Argue that it does or STFU.

          1. Roe held that the point of fetal viability was the point at which a state could have an interest superior to that of the woman’s right of privacy and could (but didn’t have to) regulate the procedure. The SCOTUS balanced the right of privacy with the state’s interest in preserving the life of a fetus and came up with fetal viability as the point at which regulation could occur. Why not read the Roe opinion before attacking me? I don’t “feel good” that a woman ever has to be in the position of wanting to terminate a pregnancy, regardless of the reason: whether the pregnancy was the result of rape, incest, contraception failure, profound fetal abnormalities, material health risks, genetic abnormalities or for whatever reason.

            1. Natch ” Roe held that the point of fetal viability was…”

              Didn’t we just learn that justices are not biologists? If they aren’t capable of saying what a woman is I think arcana like ‘fetal viability’ is beyond their powers of comprehension.

              1. “Fetal viability” is a moving target–with advances in perinatology and neonatology, younger and younger fetuses may potentially survive, which is why the “viability” point was selected, rather than an arbitrary point like 6 or 15 weeks–more proof of the wisdom of this decision. Judges don’t have to comprehend when this point is–medical science will.

    2. Still waiting for your comment on the VIDEO of Biden’s assertion that the laptop was Russian disinformation.

      1. Who says that there isn’t Russian disinformation on the laptop? It is known that there are entries dated after the computer was turned over to the repair shop. What is the source of these entries, and who says they didn’t come from Russia, which has been proven to help Trump cheat? The fact that Giuliani copied the hard drive and disseminated copies to Republicans in Congress before turning it over to the FBI makes the entire story stink, but as of now, no crimes have been proven. No one cares anyway, except you Trumpsters and the alt-right media you rely on. The entire “Hunter Laptop Scandal” is a deflection away from the actual crimes committed by Trump and Republicans. Just today, Trump settled a lawsuit over $750 K in campaign funds that were improperly spent. The Jan 6th Committee turns up new evidence every day of the involvement of Republican members of Congress who were involved in the planning for the insurrection.

Comments are closed.