The Conspiracy Behind the Leaked Roe v Wade Decision By Charles Taylor (Florida)
A judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) over-ruling the sacred cow of the Left, Roe v Wade, the abortion case, allegedly representing the majority view, that is, of five conservative judges, has been leaked. This is probably by a law clerk of one of the liberal judges, and no doubt he/she will get away with this crime; already Democrats are praising him/her. As detailed below, the Left has gone even more insane than usual, at a level not seen since George Floyd could not breathe. This comes at a time of a decline in faith in Joe Biden, and is just the thing the Left needs to gather the troops for massive electoral fraud in November. What will happen is as clear as day. Violent protests will lead to at least one so-called conservative judge backing down, and the decision will collapse. But the Left will be re-moralised and will romp home in the November elections, with more votes than could possibly exist; even the dead will be voting, and nothing will be done about it, as with the 2020 election. Yet again, conservatives will lose, I am sorry to say. So, unlike most, I am not celebrating the possible over-ruling of Roe v Wade; it is just not going to happen. And even if it did, the Democrats will immediately stack the court with a thousand Leftist judges and undo it in an instant.
“Pro-life and pro-abortion activists gathered outside the Supreme Court on Tuesday morning following a bombshell report which revealed the Court could potentially overrule Roe v. Wade.
On Monday evening, Politico published an alleged decision seemingly written by Justice Samuel Alito and circulated around Court on the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case. The case revolves around Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban and is the most significant challenge in decades to the Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which declared abortion to be protected by the U.S. Constitution. Someone allegedly leaked the draft to Politico — an action considered by many to be an “original sin for judicial ethics,” and “one of the greatest breaches of security in the history of the Court.”
Pro-life activists, including Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising (PAAU), gathered at the Supreme Court on Monday night and Tuesday morning, saying they “reacted with cautious optimism to news that a majority of the Supreme Court may strike down Roe and Casey, landmark decisions that legalized abortion in the United States,” the group said in a statement.
Students for Life was also in attendance. The group’s president Kristan Hawkins said that while the validity of the report is not yet fully-known, “ending Roe is the right decision.”
“Ending preborn human life is and has always been a judicial error. The court cannot allow the bullying tactics of the left combined with the threat of chaos cause by an unprecedented leak to change the right course — the end of Roe,” Hawkins tweeted.
Notably, fence barricades went up around the Supreme Court on Monday evening after a leak of an alleged draft — likely a response to potential backlash from radical pro-abortion protesters.”
“After gathering at the steps of the Supreme Court and chanting all through the night in support of abortion, a crowd of worshippers are still having a hard time getting their pagan god Moloch to hear them.
"We've chanted, and danced, and even cut ourselves with knives, but still, Moloch is silent," said protest leader and male feminist Skeeve Rapenburg. "Why does he not hear? Why won't he send down fire from the sky and consume this infernal SCOTUS building? MOLOCH! HEAR US!"
Sources at the scene have suggested that Moloch may possibly be on vacation, sitting on the toilet with terrible diarrhea, or binging the latest season of My Little Pony on Netflix. To get the attention of the ancient god of child blood sacrifice, the protestors will have to resort to even more extreme attention-seeking methods, such as arson or screaming into the camera in a TikTok video.
"We will not rest until the great Moloch hears us," shouted Rapenburg, banging his drums even louder.
At publishing time, the crowd was discussing the possibility of sacrificing a beautiful virgin to get the god's attention but failed to do so after being unable to find any virgins.”
“The Supreme Court has voted to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision that provides women with a constitutionally protected right to an abortion, a report said.
The draft majority opinion was written by Justice Samuel Alito and provided to Politico.
“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito writes in the 98-page draft opinion, obtained by the outlet.
The conservative-controlled Supreme Court has rejected the 1973 decision that guaranteed constitutional protections for abortion rights as well as the subsequent Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision in 1992.
“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” he writes in the document, labeled as the “Opinion of the Court.”
“It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
The ruling, which was drafted in February, would end the federal abortion protections and instead leave the decision up to each state to restrict or ban abortions.
It’s not clear if there have been subsequent changes to the draft, Politico reported.
No draft decision in the court’s modern history has been released publicly while a final decision on a case was still pending, according to the outlet.
SCOUTS judges are known to have changed their votes as opinions circulate, Politico noted, and major decisions such as this can go through multiple drafts before a final decision is made.
A source familiar with the court’s discussions on the matter told the outlet that four of the other conservative justices – Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — joined Alito in his vote after the judges convened following oral arguments in December.
The four judges have maintained their positions as of this week. The source said Democratic-appointed justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were working on one or more dissents, leaving Justice John Roberts — who is expected to either join the dissent or pen an opinion of his own.
The right to have an abortion up until around 23 or 24 weeks, has been federally protected under the Constitution since the Roe v. Wade 49 years ago.
In December, the Supreme Court signaled its willingness to overturn the landmark case and permit a Mississippi ban on abortion after 15 weeks.
If the Alito draft is adopted, it would rule in favor of Mississippi — prompting about 26 states in the South and Midwest to move to immediately ban abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion rights advocacy research group.
The court’s final decision is expected later this spring.”
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/05/02/leaked-supreme-court-opinion-overruling-roe-v-wade/
“A draft Supreme Court opinion overruling Roe v. Wade has been leaked to the press, in one of the greatest scandals to ever hit the nation’s highest court and a possible attempt to intimidate one or more justices to reverse their vote or to ignite a liberal brushfire to pack the Supreme Court before Democrats lose Congress in November.
“It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives,” the possible draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito reads, making the case that where the Constitution is silent, the American people govern themselves through elections and elected leaders, not federal judges. It quotes the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who said, “The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.” It then adds, “That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand.”
The document published by Politico that claims to be a draft opinion appears to be legitimate, but it is not a binding decision of the court unless at least five justices sign it, and this looks like a transparent and unprecedented betrayal by one of the 45 or so people with access to a draft Supreme Court opinion to prevent this decision from becoming law by scaring off moderate justices and attempting to whip the political left into a frenzy.
There are five key points to realize about this opinion, how its shocking leak could have happened, and why the Supreme Court will suffer incalculable damage if one of the majority justices switches sides.
First, what the 67-page opinion says. Key highlights include page 5:
We hold that Roe v. Wade must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”
The right to abortion does not fall into this category. Until the latter part of the 20th century, such a right was entirely unknown to American law. Indeed, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three quarters of the States made abortion a crime at all stages of pregnancy. The abortion right is also critically different from any other right that this Court has held to fall within the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of “liberty.” Roe’s defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roeand Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called “fetal life” and what the law now before us describes as an “unborn human being.”
The opinion discusses at length whether the Constitution as originally understood included a right to abortion, concluding it does not. It then goes on for many pages of the features of stare decision — the legal policy of when to adhere to court precedent — and explains why stare decisis does not require upholding Roe’s right to abortion.
Then finally, on page 62 it addresses the point that whoever betrayed the court was likely trying to make with this unprecedented violation of trust: “The American people’s belief in the rule of law would be shaken if they lost respect for this Court as an institution that decides important cases based on principle, not ‘social and political pressures.’”
“But we cannot exceed the scope of our authority under the Constitution, and we cannot allow our decisions to be affected by the extraneous influences such as concern about the public’s reaction to our work,” Alito responds for the court. “That is true both when we initially decide a constitutional issue and when we consider whether to overrule a prior decision.”
Second, why the opinion is probably legitimate. In an era of word processors, fraudsters can make documents that physically look like the real thing. But this is different.
First, Supreme Court opinions are dense and complex. There are extremely carefully written, and are full of citations and quotations. Experienced appellate attorneys know what they look like, and this carries all the hallmarks of that.
Also, each justice has his or her own voice. This reads like an opinion by Sam Alito. So there is every reason to believe he authored this first draft. And given that the Dobbs case was argued on December 1, the timestamp of February 10 on this draft would fit a normal opinion-writing timeframe for something of this scope.
Third, how this could have happened and why. The only people who definitely have access to this are the nine justices and their 36 law clerks — four assigned to each justice — for a total of 45 people. It is almost certain that it had to have been one of the law clerks, who would take the ultimate credential a young lawyer can achieve and instead put himself on a track to never be licensed to practice law in this nation.
Fourth, why this might not actually become the actual decision of the Supreme Court. It takes five votes on the nine-member court to make it a majority opinion. When cases are argued, the justices have a weekly closed-door conference on Friday at which they discuss the case, take a preliminary vote, and one justice from the majority is assigned the task of writing the opinion.
After that opinion is written, it is circulated to the other justices. That is when the negotiating begins, where justices say that they could join if certain changes are made, and others decide to dissent and organize that writing effort. Still, other justices join the majority judgment but write concurring opinions to emphasize some point important to them.
At any time during this process, justices can change their vote. And it happens. Often the cases do not grab headlines. But earthshattering decisions like the one upholding Obamacare in 2012, NFIB v. Sebelius, bears the hallmarks of being such a case.
This then appears to be an effort to intimidate a moderate conservative justice to switch sides, in which case this opinion would become a dissenting opinion, and a liberal justice’s opinion would speak for the majority.
The threat here appears to be court-packing. In the 1937 Jones & Laughlin Steel case, two Supreme Court justices switched from years of their own precedents to reinterpret the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, fundamentally transforming the power of the federal government over the nation.
They did this in an unnecessary attempt to stop FDR’s plan to pack the court with six new justices, for a total of 15. It was unnecessary because the plan was already collapsing, but the public intimidation convinced a couple of members of the court to virtually transform the nation.
Democrats have explored court packing over the past two years for the first time in eight decades. Doubtless many on the left will claim that now they have to do it.
Finally, the Supreme Court’s credibility is at stake to see this through. If anyone switches their vote because of this, the court will take more than a generation to regain the trust of the American people.
As page 65 of the leaked opinion explains:
We do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to today’s decision overruling Roe and Casey. And even if we could foresee what will happen, we would have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision. We can only do our job, which is to interpret the law, apply longstanding principles of stare decisis, and decide this case accordingly.
We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Roe and Casey must be overruled, and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives.
The case is Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, No. 19-1392 in the Supreme Court of the United States.”
Griswold (the right to contraception) Obergefell (same-sex marriage) Loving (interracial marriage) and Lawrence (consensual sex acts), foundations of Leftism, would all be challenged by this decision, so no wonder the Left are going mad.
Comments