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.
The investigation to date is ala “let’s round up the usual suspects.” CJ Roberts who worries about the institution of the Court, due to the unprecedented and extreme break in the confidentiality of deliberations of the Court, should appoint a special master pursuant to FRCP 53 (b) (i) to “hold trial proceedings and make or recommend findings of fact on issues to be decided without a jury if appointment is warranted by:…(i) some exceptional condition.”‘ Such a special master should be granted the power to subpoena and compel the production of all cellphones and computers owned and used by all clerks and have the same inspected for e-mails and attachments to Politico and deleting of the same on the date and time in question as well as pushing Politico as far as possible within the meaning of any shield laws to reveal the identity of the leaker . Any clerk who jumps ship in the face of such an investigation and writes their mea culpa on the op ed page of the NYT or WP is obviously the culprit.
The leak might have been criminal. It was certainly an attempt to generate harassment against the justices in an effort to change their opinion by force or threat, as well as to gin up the Democrat voting base. That base has been apathetic about voting for Democrats in light of how their party has been doing while in power. Out of control crime, inflation, gas prices, higher murder rates, a bumbling president who seems to be struggling mentally, the Hunter Biden laptop scandal allegedly selling access to Joe Biden to foreign powers, the coverups, demanding that kids as young as kindergarten be told in school they can change their gender, which is a euphemism for get castrated. Over 70% of people polled actually agree with FL’s Wait Til 8 bill, when asked if they think gender identity shouldn’t be discussed with children younger than 8. Dave Chappell was assaulted on stage, in front of a live audience, but Democrat DA Gascon does not prosecute misdemeanors, so the guy will walk.
The midterms are predicted to be a bloodbath. Having Roe v Wade overturned will allow Democrats to lie about what that means, which might be able to energize their voters who have been destroying the country.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg used to lecture that Roe v Wade was decided incorrectly. It should have been left to the states. That way, the laws would be changeable, and reflect the values of the residents of that state. They could change with evolving mores. Instead, the Court fabricated a constitutional right to kill an unborn child out of whole cloth, which created a schism. Abortion laws should be made by the states, or Congress. Not legislated from the bench. People need to have the hard discussions on this emotionally fraught issue, and come up with the most fair laws they can. Instead, they’d rather kick it down the road to the Supreme Court, and have someone else to blame if they don’t like the laws. Take responsibility and work to get the laws passed that you want.
By leaving it to the states, NY will have brutally unrestricted abortion, including full term infants, and OK and TX will have the most restrictive. Both sides will represent the will of their residents. That’s the democratic process.
“It was certainly an attempt to generate harassment against the justices in an effort to change their opinion by force or threat, as well as to gin up the Democrat voting base.”
That’s a conjecture, not something you should be “certain” about.
We do not know who leaked it, or why. There are plausible reasons that someone on the left would have leaked it, but there are also plausible reasons that someone on the right would have leaked it.
As for “It should have been left to the states,” anti-abortionists are already trying to pass legislation making it illegal to go out of state for an abortion. The goal of anti-abortionists is to make it illegal nationally.
They won’t be able to illegalize out of state abortions.
It is an interstate law matter which a state does not have jurisdiction to make law.
If you believe the current administration has anything to do with gas prices, you are woefully under informed. Gas prices are international, does not matter how much gas we produce, it is an international market and unless they were to impose price controls it goes where the international market goes. Likewise if you think Biden has anything to do with local crime. Both these items are long term trends, and are also trends internationally. Society is changing, the U.S. is no different. Likewise the nationalistic (racist) Repo party, this is an international trend. For some reason, more people are interested in being nationalistic racists world wide. Go figure.
“If you believe the current administration has anything to do with gas prices, you are woefully under informed.”
If you don’t understand that regulations and taxes (such as those imposed by Biden’s Green Zealots) destroy production, the you don’t understand the first thing about politics and economics.
If you believe that the current administration “doesn’t” have anything to do with the current gas prices, you are brain damaged beyond repair. I’m pretty sure my 4th grader understands the concept of international trade, therefore most reading this article do too. However International trade for oil & gas would “not” be an issue if Biden did not annex the Keystone XL pipeline project, along with shutting down as many oil industries within the U.S. as he possibly could. “If” Biden wasn’t so bent on making sure that America is “not” self-sufficient while being forced to utilize international outsourcing that lines his personal bank accounts. We would NOT be purchasing gas from other countries. Instead, we would be selling it to other countries making profits instead of debts, while being able to continue to “lower” the gas prices for all Americans. I’m shocked you’re unable to figure that one out! Let’s not forget, as your President continues to do on a daily basis, about the 30 plus thousands of jobs that were taken away as well from Americans and Canadian’s as well. As for the crime rate sky rocking, even my 4th grader understands, if you do not have the police in your area to assist in keeping the peace, well then you can easily get away with murder. Defunding the police is pretty much the most ignorant choice ever made in USA history while completely lacking all common sense. Those crime rates rising “because of defunding the Police” and the judicial system allowing slaps on the wrist punishments, to no punishment at all to repeat criminal offenders are all thanks to the raciest groups like Anifa and the New Presidential administration. Therefore – you are absolutely and positively incorrect. The only raciest people in this country right now are the ones burning down police stations and cities, while bulling the highest court in the land to rule in their favor, while starting riots and action like crazies who have way too much time on their hands.” They are not white privileged (which by the way, is as raciest as it gets.) nor are they called Nationalist, get your facts straight or read a book sometime.
Yep, Conservatives really are pro life…https://www.comicsands.com/george-carlin-abortion-conservative-hypocrisy-2657270634.html
Saying that “all” Conservatives are pro-life, is like saying that “all” Democrats are snowflake sheep, lacking all common sense & are most definitely feeble-minded simpletons that need to repeat elementary school before discussing political or economic views any further.
Yup, Democrats really are extremely raciest! While seemingly containing only 2 brain cells, that are still looking for each other……https://sillykhan.com/2020/06/05/law-and-order-cities-burning/
Whenever I hear a Judge say a word is not mentioned in the Constitution along with the touting of Democracy as the solution to anything and everything, that tends to make me think he is trying to get around the issue without delivering a sound legal opinion. We have a Constitutional democracy. Of those two words, Constitutional is the more important. Democracy is absolutely essential, but it is Constitutional government’s little brother. It plays a supporting role. The bedrock of our liberty is the anti-democratic Bill of Rights — over which voters have no say. Democracy with a capital D brings chaos — as can be seen from the illiberal democracies we have been helping to create for the past half-century.
Along those lines, Alito’s paragraph emphasizing that abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution strikes me as rather weak. Contraceptives are not mentioned in the Constitution. Neither is the Internet, or a thousand other things that the court can still use Constitutional principles to consider. Under Alito’s logic, doesn’t it stand to reason that Griswald v. Connecticut is based on flawed thinking as well? The contraceptives in Griswald, as well as not being mentioned in the Constitution, were not “deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition,” which is why he says he can’t let the 14th amendment and the overall right to privacy apply to abortion.
I also find Alito’s explanation that abortion is different because “it involves the extinguishing of a life” to be weak and evasive as well. Rather, abortion is unique because you have competing Constitutional rights — that of the fetus and that of the mother. But he doesn’t dare phrase it that way, because competing Constitutional rights fall within the domain of the court — not the voters. And along those lines he does not ponder the irrational state of affairs that befalls the Nation if the Court abdicates its duty to do the best that it can with this unique issue. Fundamental Constitutional rights, which is what we are dealing with here, cannot vary from state to state. He’d rather not think about the fundamental Constitutional rights of the fetus and of the mother that most certainly exist in this matter. That’s supposed to be his job. Apparently, he’s just not up to it.
“Of those two words, Constitutional is the more important. Democracy is absolutely essential, but it is Constitutional government’s little brother.”
Well said.
Steve, I agree that it is a weak point saying what words are not found in the constitution. I don’t however agree that SCOTUS is abdicating it’s responsibility. Just because a case involves fundamental rights does not mean it needs a SCOTUS ruling. The target of that abdication claim should be the the activist lower courts.
During her White House briefing today, Jen Psaki would not condemn the leak of the draft of the Roe Supreme Court decision. Psaki says WH doesn’t have a view on it.
The White House did not condemn the leaking of the draft opinion. Stop for a moment and consider how outrageous this is. No condemnation. Not by the president. Not by the press secretary. Not one word of condemnation. Nor did the press corps press them on it !!!
Trump was 100% correct when he called the press the Enemy of The People. So is the Biden administration. Jen Psaki is a disgrace.
Well think about it….The WH did not condemn the leak because someone in their circle is responsible for the leak. It’s a desperate move to get votes, the current administration could care less about abortion laws or most laws, all they care about is money, power and glory (with votes) However, if they cannot earn the votes, it’s not a problem…they will create them and change the election process as much as they can for as long as possible. Biden went on the media & condemned the Texas Border Patrol on horseback for controlling their horses with whips, and even though the “photographer” said; the whips touched ONLY the horses and it was proven that NO people were ever whipped. He lied and told everyone the TX Border Patrol whipped people. They lost their jobs, and so did the horses! But when the young National Guard soldier died trying to save people on the border, the WH and Biden dismissed it as much as humanly possible while giving it less than one min airtime or recognition. (Where was BLM? I thought they cared? yea right….money, division and hatred is the only thing they care about.) The WH and corrupted officials gave the LIE on horseback HOURS of airtime, over and over until every channel covered the fiction story to death. (Talking about beating a dead horse!)
What if the “leaker” is a Justice of the Court??
Then impeachment could be pressed. Judges remain while in good behavior.
Well, current history teaches us that if the leaker is a Democrat who happens to be a Justice of the Court, then nothing will happen. Absolutely Nothing. And that’s when the negative domino effect begins, for all Supreme Court Justices. (Example: Will Smith physically assaults a comedian for telling a joke that he didn’t approve of and gets away with it. Domino effect: Dave Chappelle tells a joke at a comedy club and a person in the crowd doesn’t approve of Chappelle’s joke, so he decides to physically assault the comedian, and like that of Will Smith…he gets away with it.)
“Abortion is the killing of a *child*.”
That reminds me of an announcement I’ve been meaning to make:
My 18-month old fetus is leaning how to speak. And my 16-year old fetus how to drive.
Even Gorsuch would have a problem with that. COTUS only protects the life interests of persons, and person ≠ fetus.
Of course, Gorsuch was testi-LYING when he said that.
You really are pathetic. But please keep up the entertainment.
“[P]lease keep up the entertainment.”
Easy to do, with your side playing Humpty Dumpty.
Until they are 18 (and maybe beyond), they are not just a fetus, they are also a “feed-us”
“@POTUS
United States government official
The draft opinion calls into question the fundamental right to privacy — the right to make personal choices about marriage, whether to have children, and how to raise them.
These are fundamental rights for Americans — a critical part of who we are.”
——————————————————————————————————————-
The above entirely false statement was tweeted by President Biden. Hello “fact” checkers? Any “fact” checkers out there?
Alito’s opinion says explicitly at least twice that abortion is unique because it involves extinguishing life and therefore has no implications for the earlier substantive due process decisions. Whether this is a sound Constitutional basis for distinguishing the cases is debatable, but there is no doubt that this is what the opinion says.
It is interesting that Biden and others are not content to focus on abortion alone but instead are fear mongering through a parade of horribles. Perhaps it shows that they are actually not that confident that the public at large is unhappy having the abortion debate restored to ordinary politics where each state can decide what to do for itself, and so feel the need to raise alarms about the far more accepted rights relating to marriage, contraception and raising children.
Daniel: Not only are you correct in highlighting Alito’s express statements. I further am amused at how often left-wing progressives have previously delighted in the Court overruling its own precedent. They reject “originalism” and “textualism” and favor the wise SCOTUS for treating the Constitution as a “living document” that reflects evolving perspectives/developments (social mores, scientific advances over the years, etc.) (Think Obergefell, Lawrence v. Texas, Atkins, Brown, etc.) Just this past February, BIden stated: “The Constitution is always evolving slightly in terms of additional rights or curtailing rights.”
Now, suddenly, progressives are upset that the Court is acting as though the Constitution is a ‘living document” that reflects evolving perspectives/developments (social mores, scientific advances over the years, etc.)
I’m an originalist, and have no problem finding Lawrence and a rewritten Roe in the Framers’ own words.
There is only one way to interpret “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” But even if you could find a viable alternate meaning, you always turn to the legislative history, which we have.
In introducing his draft of our Bill of Rights to the House of Representatives, Rep. Madison 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).
What part of this analysis do you find fault with, and WHY?
???
I also have no problem finding Lawrence and a rewritten Roe in the Framers’ own words, -at least in the intended meaning of their own words.
I am/was referring to the selective application of “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.”
Both cases involved challenges to the “unenumerated” right to privacy. In both cases, privacy rights may be limited/restricted by supervening/superceding governmental “compelling interests, i.e., the protection of human life after a certain developmental stage; the protection of the public from being forced to witness/view sexual acts in public vs. a private bedroom. N’est ce pas?
Coming full circle now, the Court appears to be posturing itself to return to the states the prerogative to flesh out the “red line” between the “unenumerated rights” and the “compelling interests” that may limit/restrict them. Since they are unenumerated (neither defined nor delineated by the Framers), their values/parameters are subject to expand/constrict based on “evolving” social mores, knowledge, medical/scientific advancements, etc.
I’m certain some of those red lines will be challenged again. I disagree with the scare-tactic rhetoric that overruling Roe means that abortion is illegal. I am most interested in CJ Robert’s return to the “window of opportunity” criterion (in weighing competing interests) for decision-making as a red line. I find that pertinent, relevant, and reasonable.
So where do we disagree? I am unable to address you more precisely because I do not understand what you are deriving at?
(p.s., I also think that the Court is kicking the can down the road, as the concept of “viablity” is a moving target at this point.)
There is plenty of hypocracy to go arround.
This decision reflects LEFT constitutional thinking more than that of the right.
– there are no rights,
– it is up to the majority or the people to decide.
– prior precedent does not matter.
While the left is arguing
– abortion is somehow an absolute right
– but free speech is not ?
– prior decisions are sacred.
For 200 years the 9th amendment has been treated as meaningless.
But the framers were clear about why it was included in the bill of rights.
If we do not have a fundimental right to control of our own bodies – no other rights matter.
That includes abortion, vaccination, drug use, ….
We have the right to do with our own bodies as we please.
Both left and right ignore that depending on the issue.
There are thousands of living breathing people in the world that have lived long healthy lives. And that was after being taken out of a woman’s body after only four months of pregnancy. My cousin is one of them. However, he would not have become a doctor nor would have been able to save hundreds of lives, if the government called him a fetus & his mother called him a mistake. Terminating a pregnancy before 7 weeks after fertilization, is a fetus being killed. Any time after that, it’s a human being slaughtered. Those “so called late abortion fetus’s” are scientifically and factually a human life that deserves equal treatment with the respect that all other human beings get.
The conceptual flaw in Alito’s opinion is that he didn’t even TRY to tether it to the Constitution.
There is a right way to interpret the Constitution. The Framers told us how to do it. You don’t need a law degree to do it, but you do need the ability to think logically and “the modesty to persist when [proper constitutional exegesis] produces results that go against [your] policy preferences.” Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, ___, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1176 (2011) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
The first applicable rule of constitutional exegesis, which you would encounter in the first week of law school, is that it “cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and, therefore, such a construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1803). (The case is the first or second one featured in most if not all constitutional law textbooks, for obvious reasons.) Second, it is the court’s duty “to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute.” Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U.S. 147, 152 (1883). Third, a constitutional provision “should not be construed so as to defeat its evident purpose, but rather so as to give it effective operation and suppress the mischief at which it was aimed.” Jarrolt v. Moberly, 103 U.S. 580, 586 (1880); accord, e.g., Heydon’s Case [1584] 76 Eng. Rep. 637, 638 (K.B.) (“the office of all judges is always to make such construction [of a law] as shall suppress the mischief, advance the remedy, and to suppress subtle invention and evasions for continuance of the mischief … according to the true intent of the makers of the act”). Finally, in the words of Justice Thomas, our “courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-54 (1992) (quotations omitted; collecting cases covering two centuries).
As a rule, judges only follow precedent when it takes them where they wanted to go in the first place. The famed Judge Richard Posner confesses that appellate judges routinely take indecent liberties with both facts and precedent, in an often-transparent effort to conceal the fact that they are not so much interpreting the law as rewriting it to comport with their personal preferences—“constantly digging for quotations from and citations to previous cases to create a sense of inevitability about positions that they are in fact adopting on grounds other than deference to precedent”—a process colorfully characterized as “fig-leafing.” Richard A. Posner, How Judges Think 144, 350 (Harv. U. Press 2008). Professor Llewellyn adds that, whenever a judge wants an outcome badly enough, s/he will “lie to get it.” Karl N. Llewellyn, The Common Law Tradition: Deciding Appeals 135 (1960). Samuel Alito, Catholic Hack, guilty as charged.
The right involved is not abortion.
It is the right to control of your own bodies.
One of the problems with this decision – and the arguments both right and left is that they are about the WRONG fundimental right.
There is no right to kill a fetus. There is a right to control your own body – that includes the right to refuse vaccination, to take the drugs of your chosing – whether that is HCQ and Ivarmectin or Marijuana and Heroin, and to have the fetus removed from your body.
This is a bad decision – not because it allows restrictions on abortions. But because it undermines actual and fundimetally CONSERVATIVE positions on individual rights.
This decision fundimentally enhances the power of those democratic big government majoritarians – not those who advocate for the rights of individuals over government.
Nice vision but largely unsupported by constitutional law.
And even if bodily integrity is to be protected, abortion involves more, because it entails the killing of a living being that in the ordinary course will become a person. Saying it is simply removing a fetus from a body elides that difference, and avoids grappling with the reason abortion is so controversial.
But in any event your proposition is untethered from constitutional law as it exists today and throughout our history. Under existing constitutional norms, states have the power, among other things, to make drug use illegal and to compel vaccination. What you are proposing is a radical amendment of constitutional law simply because you prefer the value of bodily integrity to other values. I might agree. I also might prefer allowing any and all consensual behaviour between adults to its prohibition. That would give constitutional rights status to prostitution, drug dealing, consensual duels, polygamy, physician assisted suicide, etc. But the way to give effect to these values is through the political process not the courts.
In your discussions with multiple individuals, Daniel, you define the difference between individual ideologies prevailing and the Constitution, which incorporates many different ideas but acts as an anchor for all ideological opinions. I think the Constitution’s existence is of utmost importance that should supersede one’s ideology which can be pursued legislatively or by amendment. That being said, and without discussing the idea of abortion, Row v Wade should be overturned by the Court.
That statement is demonstrably true. there is only one way to interpret “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” But even if you could find a viable alternate meaning, you always turn to the legislative history, which we have.
In introducing his draft of our Bill of Rights to the House of Representatives, Rep. Madison 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).
What part of this analysis do you find fault with, and WHY?
But, but, but , but the Second Amendment. That right will be attacked by the left while they make such claims.
I find the right to organize into a militia in the 2Am, and the RKBA in the Ninth, as a logical corollary of the right to revolution (see e.g., NH Const. art. 10). Reasonable constraints can be placed on just about every right.
Biden is not actually wrong.
But he is hypocritical.
Chosing to mask or not, choosing to be vaccinated or not, being free to say what you want,
These are all individual rights that he is prepared to sacrifice on the alter of his ideology.
2002-2003 Basically PRO-SE and against ALL ODDS in Denver Federal Court I “won” a Dismissal With Prejudice in a decade pre-Snowden NAT-SEC Case against my former employer / MASSIVE USG DOD / IC “STRATEGIC PARTNER” Tele Tech Holdings / Tele Tech Government Solutions (The “DOG” Digital Original Gangster”) and its UBER POWERFUL Denver/DC Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber & Schreck with unlimited access to economic resources and POWERFUL political connections… after the “judge” / judicial arbiter tried to convince me I was simply wasting everyone’s time. We then had a talk then about Equal Justice, Equal Access, Due Process… if that was really a thing based on his predetermination of the outcome. – So AFTER my “BIG WIN” things got overwhelmingly worse! / After the “forced” Dismissal With Prejudice… Malicious Prosecution, Abuse of Process, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and TTEC / BHFS in violation of a Motion to Compel Order and feet-dragging overdue ruling on Summary Judgment… the judge asked me in private 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 RETAINER!!! And subsequently that if you want to lose faith in democracy… talk to your congressman. No justice No 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 recvorded views… for some reason…. “In a world of universal deceit… telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” George Orwell