SCOTUS draft opinion that would strike down Roe v. Wade

Rampage

Member
An internal draft opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has been leaked, revealing the Roberts court may be planning to overturn the 1973 SCOTUS decision Roe v. Wade.

John Roberts calls release of draft Roe v. Wade reversal a 'singular and egregious breach' of trust and orders an investigation
By Ariane de Vogue and Devan Cole, CNN

(CNN) Chief Justice John Roberts says the Supreme Court will investigate the release of a draft opinion that would strike down Roe v. Wade and called the episode "a singular and egregious breach" of trust.
"This was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants who work here. I have directed the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the source of the leak," Roberts said in a statement Tuesday.

Supreme Court draft opinion would overturn Roe v. Wade
"To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed," Roberts said. "The work of the Court will not be affected in any way. We at the Court are blessed to have a workforce -- permanent employees and law clerks alike -- intensely loyal to the institution and dedicated to the rule of law. Court employees have an exemplary and important tradition of respecting the confidentiality of the judicial process and upholding the trust of the Court."
The court's public affairs office confirmed the document published by Politico is "authentic," but stressed that "it does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case."


Republicans have rhetorically criticized "legislation from the bench", code language for using stare decisis ("to stand by things decided") to create law the legislature (congress) cannot or will not pass into law.

If this attempt to overturn settled law, what's next?
 
Here's what WaPo wrote:

A decision to overturn Roe v. Wade might upend the midterms​

A ruling on abortion rights could turn the campaign into a massive mobilizing effort over the issues of abortion, individual rights and the contrasting philosophies of the two major political parties​

By Dan Balz, Colby Itkowitz and Caroline Kitchener
Today at 6:22 p.m. EDT
“A strong defense of life is a vote winner,” said Kristi Hamrick, chief media and policy strategist for Students for Life, one of the largest antiabortion groups. “It energizes people.”
Majority of Americans think the Supreme Court should uphold Roe, poll finds ...


Goebbels would find that political rhetoric impressive. If Republicans like U.S. President GWB are actually "pro-life" why did Governor GWB (R-"TX") preside over more Texas State executions than any Texas governor before him?

c5725774c467b13b9b8771277ae74b7774e6098.JPG


The first and only U.S. president to lie US into War, "pro"-life? Republicans are anti-choice, but too ashamed to admit it. So the "pro-life" propaganda message continues.

The First Amendment implications here raise questions about the very definition of conservatism. The Republican party aka the GOP, "the party of Lincoln" earned a reputation for political conservatism: spend wisely, tax frugally. From mid-20th century to today most of those 70 years benefited from a politically conservative GOP.
No more.
The inmates have overtaken the asylum, seemingly a U.S. political party palace coup d'état.
No longer does the GOP stand for conservatism as manifest by dictionary definition the inclination to maintain tradition. Radical Republicans since Speaker Gingrich have forfeited legitimate claim to the righteous banner of genuine political / fiscal conservatism. And then those radicals shouted down by Trump extremists.

This SCOTUS leak deserves our attention.
Appearances indicate the GOP has been chomping at the bit to reverse Roe since before the ink dried on the original 7:2 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) ruling.
And Monday's insight indicates there's been behind the scenes collaboration among the majority of SCOTUS members nominated by Republican presidents, in preparation to finally accomplish for this Republican activist minority, against the will of the majority.

Conclusion:
While today's Republican voters may understand how they benefit from retaining the reputation for political conservatism which Barry Goldwater helped burnish, the Trump cohort that overtook the Republican party without any previous experience in political office, forfeited conservatism. But to what gain?
Trump was evidently party to bloody armed insurrection against the United States of America, and Trump is still loose, at large. What has become of political conservatism within the GOP?

The bitter irony, that true political conservatives have to turn to the Democrats for genuine conservative leadership and governance.

“Toto, I have a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore.” Dorothy reporting her preliminary assessment to her Cairn terrier Toto

Goeb·bels, (Paul) Joseph 1897-1945:
German Nazi propaganda minister (1933-1945) who exploited the German media to launch propaganda against the Jews and other groups. He killed his family and himself after Germany's defeat.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2022 by HarperCollins Publishers. All rights reserved.

Apr 7, 2022 ... Roe v. Wade, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 1973, ruled (7–2) that unduly restrictive state regulation ...
 
Addressing the leaked preliminary vote to overturn Roe v. Wade Colbert observed:
Chief Justice John Roberts was not amused by this news, saying:
"This was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants who work here." Chief Justice John Roberts
"I don't blame him for being upset. This leak is a clear violation of the court's right to privacy. How dare someone make this decision for them." Stephen Colbert, CBS Late Show 22/05/03
"what's next?" Rampage
Colbert had an answer for that too.
"Because Roe v. Wade was decided on the right to privacy, some folks worry that dismantling Roe could endanger other privacy rulings like gay rights, contraceptives, even interracial marriage." Colbert
 
"... historically, the Supreme Court has been on the opposite side of majority public opinion many, many times. ...
A majority of the Supreme Court justices were appointed by presidents who became president despite losing the popular vote. And the senators who confirmed some of those justices represented a minority of Americans.
So we're moving from a system where the founders wanted minority party rights to be protected to a system that is looking a lot more like minority rule.
And the big question is, does the majority of Americans want this to continue or not?" MARA LIASSON, NPR

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/1096...-overturning-roe-v-wade-could-impact-midterms
"A majority of the Supreme Court justices were appointed by presidents who became president despite losing the popular vote." Liasson

Interesting point Mara.

President Biden has more experience, tenure in the executive branch than any other American alive.
Biden has options here.
When Biden was previously in the exec. during the Obama administration a SCOTUS vacancy lead Obama to nominate Merrick Garland. Majority Leader McConnell (R-KY) refused to perform his Constitutionally enumerated duty, so Garland never even got a hearing.
Was it legal for McConnell to do that?

Now President Biden has countermeasure options. If McConnell can refuse to hold hearing for Garland, with the practical affect of tilting the ideology of the high court to Republicans,
and now that Republicans are obviously by fraudulent means attempting to reverse the 7:2 Roe v. Wade decision, should President Biden simply increase the SCOTUS head-count from 9 to 11?
For President Biden to do so is at least as legal as McConnell's obstruction of Garland.

"Fraudulent means"?
"If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office." Senator Susan Collins (R-ME)

"Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the supreme court" Samuel Alito Nov. 11, 2006

"The supreme court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that um, a fetus is not a person for purposes of the 14th Amendment. ... That's the law of the land. I accept the law of the land." Judge Neil Gorsuch Mar. 22, 2017

"It's settled as a precedent of the supreme court." Judge Brett Kavanaugh to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) in senate confirmation hearing Sept. 5, 2018

"Roe v. Wade clearly held that the Constitution protected a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy." Judge Amy Coney Barrett Oct. 12, 2020

Now that these nominees hold SCOTUS office their positions have miraculously reversed. This bears the persuasive appearance that these Republican candidates simply unabashedly perjured their testimony under oath during these U.S. senate hearings.

I do not take much comfort knowing the majority in this Republican nominated SCOTUS cohort are perjurers.
 
Back
Top