A draft SCOTUS opinion believed to have been written by Justice Samuel Alito seems to presage an upcoming ruling that will overturn Roe V. Wade and leave it up to states to handle the abortion issue.
Chief Justice John Roberts has launched an investigation to determine who the leaker was and how the leak transpired. It will be interesting to learn the outcome -- was it a liberal clerk who wanted to give the Democrats a head start on fear mongering, fundraising and demagoguing? Quite possibly. The abortion issue could be used to divert voters' attention from the inflation, high gas prices, rising crime rates, and insane woke policies bing jammed down our throats. Or so the Dems hope.
Here's another possibility: Could the leaker have been one of the conservative clerks, getting the word out to condition the public to expect repudiation of Roe V. Wade? The reason for doing so would be if one of the five justices is not firm on overturning Roe V. Wade (Think Brett Kavanaugh). Building public expectations would likely sway this individual to vote with the five. Whoever the leaker is, that person may have jeopardized his or her future legal career.
Expect a firestorm of rage from the left. Don't be surprised if they get violent. Just as George Floyd spurred the summer 2020 riots, a final SCOTUS ruling against Roe V. Wade could fuel riots this summer. The way things have been going, that is almost expected. One thing seems clear: This will increase calls for eliminating the filibuster so as to stack the Supreme Court with leftist, activist justices.
Conservatives and people of faith need to be steadfast and calm in their defense of any ruling to overturn what even some liberals admit was bad law. The 1973 Roe V. Wade ruling essentially created something out of whole cloth. The right to privacy guarantees the right to terminate a life inside the womb? I don't think so. The constitution actually contains no express right to privacy, just as it does not include the frequently used term "separation of church and state." There are millions of blowhards out there who are ignorant of these two inconvenient truths.
One of the key arguments of the pro-abortion crowd is, "A woman's right to choose has been enshrined law for half a century! We can't overturn 50 years of precedent."
This copout assumes that the U.S. Supreme Court is the be all and end all when it comes to morals and values, and that precedent is invariably sacrosanct. But it's easily shot down. Just because the high court says something is constitutional or "right," doesn't make it so. Think of the numerous horrible decisions SCOTUS has made, not the least of which was the Dred Scott decision in 1857.
As the nation's divisiveness intensified and civil war was only a few years away, SCOTUS ruled that that a slave who had resided in a free state and territory -- Dred Scott had been taken by his owner from Missouri to Illinois and later Wisconsin for the owner's military duties -- was not thereby entitled to his freedom. The court also ruled that African Americans were not and could never be citizens of the United States; and that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. (That agreement had declared that all territories west of Missouri and north of a certain latitude were free.)
So there you have it: An egregious example of why the court is not a flawless, holy oracle. I believe the same is true for Roe V. Wade. But progressives and Democrats often rely on courts to ramrod their priorities through when they cannot pass them legislatively or through ballot initiatives.
Isn't it ironic that the pompous ones who think Donald Trump, Elon Musk and conservative white Christian men threaten "our democracy" are themselves threatening democracy by hoping they can pack the high court and have the judicial system run roughshod over the executive and legislative branches? It's outrageous hypocrisy, and doesn't take a legal scholar to figure out.
Sadly, ignorance and stupidity run rampant on the left. Lord, please save us from these charlatans.
Comments