Chief Justice John Roberts Demands Investigation, Calls Leak ‘Betrayal of the Confidences of the Court’
“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.”
SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts issued a scathing statement about the leak of Justice Alito’s opinion.
To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed. 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. 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.
SCOTUS also said that the leaked opinion “does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.” The justices pass around “draft opinions internally as a routine and essential part of the Court’s confidential deliberative work.”
JUST IN – U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts orders an investigation of Roe v. Wade leak. pic.twitter.com/Vx8ZI9rUwB
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) May 3, 2022
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
He’ll bleat for the cameras and then do nothing. In the meantime, the progs will go into full intimidation mode again, probably ginning up their street nazis to do the dirty work, all in an attempt to overturn the pending ruling. Also expect them to resume their talk of stacking the court. All while gaslighting the shit out of us, of course.
Maybe. But I doubt it. This is a major transgression. A career ender for the person who did it. If it was intended to back off the justices it will accomplish the opposite end since anyone who backs off will be encouraging the left to do it every time they are making a Constitution-oriented conservative decision. Backing off feeds the beast. And the person who backs off will be known as a judicial coward, easily intimidated, for the rest of their career by all their peers. In terms of the left demonstrating and trying to intimidate the court – again this has to produce an opposite effect for the same reason.
Meanwhile whomever did it is unlikely to have been a long time member of the staff or court since they would have done it before. So it is likely a new person or a clerk. The person who did it has to have been either a completely unreasonable ideologue willing to sacrifice their honor for the cause or someone low (a guard for example) who saw something they could sell. The demonstrators were so organized that it is likely they had advanced notice. Which means someone talked. A leftist ideologue would want to brag about it and likely whine about it. You can have a secret between two people if one of them is dead – but that is the only time. So it will come out and whomever it is – if they are a clerk their legal career is over, kaput, finished – a bad outcome for someone working to have clerking for a Supreme Court Justice on their resume. Good. Let them suffer. What honorless slime.
Not a career ending – big boost in possible employment as lead MSNBC or NYT or CNN legal correspondent
I dunno. It’s hard to do from a federal prison cell, and the i wonder how long the left will remember.
What law did the leaker break, or is not liking what the leaker did enough? You know, speaking of the “rule of law” and all that. And don’t deflect by pointing out “progressive” hypocrisy. That’s immaterial to my question.
Presidential pardon for anyone convicted? I can see it happening. The left doesn’t care about damaging a republic they despise. And Biden will sign anything placed in front of him.
For starters, theft of government property, RandomCrank. That work product belonged to the government, not the leaker. Obstruction of justice would be another charge. The leaker clearly leaked the document to throw a monkey wrench into the SCOTUS deliberations in the Dobbs case and alter the outcome. The leak had the predictable reaction; the left is losing their minds and when it’s been pointed out to them that the justices lives and safety are now in danger, many of them (on the cesspool that is Twitter) responded, “GOOD!”
Whenever anyone does anything to endanger the life of a judge in order to influence the judge’s decision, the charge is often obstruction of justice.
It wouldn’t be a hard case to make.
You’re forgetting Obamacare and Roberts with his mental gymnastics that resulted in something being labeled a “tax” when both sides of the argument were saying it wasn’t one. So if anyone is already known to be easily intimidated, it’s Roberts and his voice does not matter if nobody else changes.
Did you read the opinion? Who the hell cares what either or both sides of the argument called it? Since when do they define reality? The whole point of Roberts’s opinion is that a court must take no account of what anyone calls something; it must look only at what the thing is. It doesn’t matter if Congress or anyone else calls a tail a leg; it isn’t one. To determine whether something is a tax or a penalty one must look at it objectively and compare it to the objective criteria that distinguish one from the other. And looking at the so-called “obamacare mandate” it’s apparent that Congress, in calling it that, was simply lying.
Except for the elephant in the room: If Obamacare contained a tax, the entire law was void, because it originated in the Senate.
No, it didn’t. The bill originated in the House, and the senate amended it extensively, by deleting all its words after “That” and substituting other words. That is a standard parliamentary procedure that is common in all parliaments including our Congress.
When is a leg a tail, and can it be a tail for one purpose, but a leg for another? Apparently so. When is a tax not a tax? When John Roberts needs it not to be. Roberts wrote that the Obamacare penalty was a tax for purposes of interpreting the taxing power of congress, but not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.
And yes, congress does have the constitutional authority to impose taxes (and fees, duties, etc.) to raise revenue to fund the carrying out of the government’s other constitutionally-authorized responsibilities, but the federal government has NO constitutional power to force people to purchase a product or service, and the mandate was thus an impermissible penalty, and not a tax.
“And the person who backs off will be known as a judicial coward, easily intimidated, for the rest of their career by all their peers”
The irony of it being Obamatax Roberts who made this pronouncement is not lost on most of us.
I think that Roberts is so upset he will bring in the Big Guns to investigate: Calling Inspector Clousseau!
When Democrat rioters burn down the Supreme Court – will that be an Insurrection? Or, a mostly peaceful protest?
How will they blame the violence and destruction on Donald Trump and his supporters?
Media outlets will ignore all bad behavior. Liberals don’t disturb the narrative.
How will they blame us and President Trump? That’s easy! “If Trump (except they’ll cleverly write tRump) as his racist supporters hadn’t unconsitutionally blocked the nomination of Merrick Garland, and if President Trump hadn’t appointed such terrible fascist white supremacist cis-nomrative misogynist transphobic climate-denying anti-vax anti-science thus-and-suches to the Court, including a serial rapist whose investigation was quashed by the insurrectionist blah blah blah, this decision would never have occurred.”
It’s pretty predictable once you know the formula.
How many will get solitary while waiting for a trial?
I’d prefer sentence first, verdict later in this case. Just so we are on par with the D party prosecution.
Verdict first, then the trial!
Shouted the Queen
“will that be an Insurrection? Or, a mostly peaceful protest?”
On this wider issue, Project Veritas writes today:
Fact 1: It was a real leak. We can end all speculation.
Fact 2. The leak concerns the most critical and important SC decision in many years.
Fact 3: Our government is not secure. The rot goes all the way to the top.
Fact 4: Nothing will be done.
Fact 5: We’re screwed.
Clarification 1: This was NOT a “leak” ( as defined by the normal implication and definition of the term)- this was a calculated and planned release. The information is MONTHS old and based on the truth of your Fact:3, we can reasonably believe this “report’ was LONG ALREADY known by all of DC. ( The power players of both sides) I believe also that the “release” most likely did NOT come from anyone in the court but from someone who obtained a printed copy. ( the people on the court would have to know this would likely draw an investigation with a risk of being discovered)
Clarification 2: I would argue the SUBJECT of the leak is as you outline in Fact:2 but I strongly suspect the “concern” is for a different purpose. ( most likely more than one). Political intimidation, a smokescreen to draw attention away from current failures, rally the left and probably more.
Clarification 3: I have no information or evidence to dispute that claim. I do not rule out Roberts as the source so it may simply be lip service as a red herring. (I don’t rule him in either)
Clarification 4: I am forced to concur. I do think we will get a dog & pony investigation leading to Trump in some fashion through the Russians.
Clarification 5: This time, I don’t think so. This type of action is a “Hail Mary” from a desperately afraid group- not something a conqueror who sees victory would attempt.
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post. I will yield to your legal analysis. And I’m sure others will appreciate it as well.
I think it was released last night to take the wind out of 2000 Mules which should have blown the lid off the 2020 election.
Bingo.
I don’t know enough about the logistics and timing of the preparation of opinions to agree or disagree with your view that the draft had been circulating for a long time. For purposes of this comment, I’ll accept it as an accurate guess.
On “Clarification 2,” I think you hit on it with “rally the left.” It’ll be interesting to see what’s more salient, the ruling or the declining economy. I’m with James Carville on that: “It’s the economy, stupid.” We shall see.
I just looked again and saw that Alito circulated the draft in February. I hadn’t noticed that the first time around.
Maybe not completely screwed.
Soapbox: almost entirely neutered, most recently by the Ministry of Truth.
Ballot box: heavily compromised by unchallenged election tampering.
Jury Box: compromised by Soros DAs, took its first major holing with this case.
Cartridge box: viciously attacked, compromised in some states, but hardly all or even most.
Keep your powder dry, gentlemen, and advise the enemy that this choice is all on them.
Mr. HBowman. I express my sincere sorrow for what the the deep state did to you — and T and F and S and countless others. In regards to the advice given to Peabody I am in complete agreement.
Cernovich is speculating that it may have been an email hack instead of a leak.
Apparently the reporter who broke it works the security beat at Politico, not the legal circuit.
that’s what they said about Seth Rich
For those who think that “abortion is not in the constitution” is a good or sound argument:
1. The argument denies the existence of the 9th amendment.
2. Can you point to the phrase “parental rights” in the constitution because that relies on the same privacy right?
3. Can you point to the phrase “right to freedom from government intrustion in medical decisions” (think masks, quarantines, and covid vaccines” , in the constitution because that relies on the same privacy right?
I’m actually of the opinion that we can’t just end abortion because it would be an economic disaster without other reforms regarding child welfare policies and entitlement allowances for baby factories/generational welfare families.
However, your arguments are weak and obtuse.
The 9th amendment was not decided by a SC decision yet this would be an overturn of a SC decision(or decisions)…which the court has the power to do.
The 9th amendment did not give carte blanche to anything not enumerated in the Constitution. It said that one can’t use non-mention as an excuse to take away rights. That’s not the heart of the issue….which is the rights of the unborn who are considered living entities by many (with vital statistics to back it up). In other words, everything not in the Constitution is not an automatic right. Otherwise, why can’t you just euthanize a child at age 5?…they probably can’t make it on their own yet, so they MIGHT be inviable. Is being able to talk and say “I want to live” when you define viability? If so, bye bye 1 year olds. Since a woman has a right
Those who’d like to ignore “inconvenient living” at any point in utero have continually moved the goalposts on “science of life” to suit their abortion on demand ambitions. This is not following science; it is following an agenda. That’s why the cases need to be struck down. Shopping for your expert flavor of preference for political desires is not following science. Let’s get an honest, apolitical debate on science and biology of a living entity (establishing life and thus establishing when the progeny have rights)…then, we can talk about privacy rights. So far, no such debate without political gain and fervor injected has been allowed to progress.
Having kids to feed might be the spur needed to encourage a more productive lifestyle.
“I’m actually of the opinion that we can’t just end abortion because it would be an economic disaster without other reforms regarding child welfare policies and entitlement allowances for baby factories/generational welfare families.”
1. Abortion is not ended, just put where it always belonged as a matter of law – the states.
2. SCOTUS is supposed to rule on the constitution not the economy/other considerations.
My position was to qualify that I am thinking practically rather than emotionally.
I agree with you that states should have power to decide.
Justice Alito made it explicitly clear that it is not within SCOTUS’ purview to make moral decisions. It is not based on science, economics or anything else. For those states where they have created a large bureaucracy of “services” around slaughter houses for babies, that will up to the voters to decide.
The Constitution was written to protect the freedom and liberty of MORAL people because only MORAL people are capable of being free, However, for SCOTUS to simply rule on this without having the people weighed in on it… well that’s the problem. So they are sending it back to the states where we are already witnessing CA and NY shutting down discussion by indicating that they will soon pass laws to legalize abortion as a human right. Did I mention “no discussion”?
W0 do we want to be free or not? With freedom comes responsibility. There are consequences for abusing our freedoms including losing them if we are just hopelessly immoral. Let the people look in the mirror and decide.
You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand why Roe v Wade an awful precedent.
The opinion takes great pains to demonstrate that abortion was never recognized as a right in Anglo-American law through and after the adoption of the 14th amendment. That is far different than a long-standing presumed right to be left alone by government.
Can you point to the common law or statutory history that would support a contention that Parents do not hold the primary position of responsibility for caring, rearing and acculturation of their children in accordance with their beliefs?
The (draft) decision doesn’t ignore the 9th amendment at all. The 9th amendment simply serves to protect the non enumerated individual liberties. Abortion was not an enumerated right and in fact was criminalized by States at the founding, at passage of the 14th amendment and continued so into the 20th Century until Roe.
Freedom of conscience seems to suffice for opposition to a State govt compelling the injection of an unproven vax; reliance on Jacobson would rest on several missing factors;
1. The police power of the States which is broad v the much more narrow and constrained police power of the Fed govt in public health related nearly exclusively to immigration and entry to the US
2. the smallpox vax met the definition of a traditional vax created from an attenuated virus to confer immunity from infection; the mRNA vax, by the CDC admission don’t meet that criteria
3. efficacy of masks being mandated; beyond the issue of fed govt power to require which I do not concede, any mandate which is a restriction on liberty must have a strong scientific basis that it is effective. Non N95 caliber of masks are not effective, even N95 masks in order to be effective must be worn so snug that they become uncomfortable. They must be exchanged and replaced with a fresh mask daily. They must be handled and stored correctly when not in use. The govt has wholly failed to demonstrate that these conditions can be met by the general public.
If you want to play games about ‘that word isn’t in the Constitution’ then I am more than happy to concede your point if you are willing to be bound by the same standard but I suspect you will not because you don’t really believe in your argument.
A great many d/prog gains will be reversed see the over expansive commerce clause from Wickard. Huge portions of the administrative state will disappear under your demand for explicit text. Take a look at the enumerated powers of Congress, art 1, sec 8 and tell us which departments/agencies are not explicitly authorized.
I’ll see your claim of the 9th Amendment and raise you the 10th.
“The argument denies the existence of the 9th amendment.”
Precisely the opposite.
Saying “abortion is not in the constitution” isn’t saying “abortion is not a right,” it’s saying that “the federal government has no delegated power over abortion in either direction.”
And that’s precisely BECAUSE of the 9th Amendment.
The argument does not “deny the existence of the 9th amendment.” I tend to think that the draft underweights the 9th, but by no means does it deny its existence or even turn it into a dead letter. The 9th has always been everyone’s inconvenient amendment, and probably always will be. The opinion says that to qualify for 9th amendment recognition, a right must be “objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”
Well, they have to (or at least ought to) have some standard of what unenumerated right qualifies for recognition under the 9th, but I’m not sure I’d construct it so narrowly. In any case, rather than lie about what the draft says, I suggest that you first read it.
The leak was obviously improper and the leaker should be discovered and punished.
That said, a writer at the Federalist wrote something about this incident that I strongly agree with — to wit, that Roberts’ craven, politically-motivated capitulation to the obnoxious and brazen intimidation tactics of narcissist-incompetent, Obama, and the Dumb-o-crat mob, in the Obamacare case — with Obama issuing an obnoxious threat/admonition to the Court, stating something to the effect of, “I’m certain the Court wouldn’t take the unprecedented and dangerous step of invalidating a valid law” — gave Dumb-o-crats confidence that Roberts can be intimidated and manipulated. And, so, we have this latest intimidation stunt and breach of ethics/Court confidence.
Could not the Court exercise its inherent power of contempt to hold the leaker responsible, once identified and convicted?
I can’t say. The ethics of federal practice are not something that I’m well-versed in. But, there will undoubtedly be consequences for such a brazen breach of confidentiality.
You mean consequences besides the 7 figure book deal and 5 figure speaking fees for the next 30 years?
It would be nice, but I’ll believe it when I see it.
Just 5 minutes ago, conservatives were pretending to be champions of parental rights.
Today they celebrate the ripping away of the most fundamental parental right of all, the right to decide whether or not to become a parent.
Here ladies and gentlemen is the unmasking of another high tech Politico Troll.
Nobody can take that many statements out of their true and proper context accidentally.
Indeed, Juris Doctor has assembled quite a history of posting unconvincing leftist apologetics here.
What part of “it’s not the business of the FEDERAL government” gives you the most trouble, JD?
Democrats: HOW DARE YOU RIP BABIES FROM THE ARMS OF MOTHERS AT THE SOUTHERN BORDER!
Also Democrats: HOW DARE YOU STOP US RIPPING BABIES FROM THE BODIES OF BIRTHING HUMANS!!
The decision to become a parent begins before pregnancy – with personal responsibility regarding who one beds and under what circumstances.
There are lots of ways one can exercise the right to avoid becoming a parent. Not all of them are equally moral or legal, as Soulja Boy discovered.
One may as well argue that people have a right to dissolve marriages or emancipate themselves from bad parents, without feeling the need to defend the OJ or Menendez approaches.
The right to decide whether or not to become a parent has many paths of decision along the way that you are conveniently ignoring for 99+% of cases.
Conservative debaters such as Shapiro have already stated we’d give you the exception…in fact, maybe it will lead to more confidential rape reporting, which would be a good thing!
Do what? Did your parents never sit you down and have ‘the talk’? There are plenty of options for those who do not wish to become Parents that don’t come close to abortion. You are likely very familiar with one; celibacy.
that decision is made before the pregnancy ensues
Juris – you mean the fundamental right to kill ?
By the time you get to an abortion you’re already a parent. And it’s universally agreed that a parent does not have the right to abandon their child, let alone to murder it.
You need to shorten that second sentence. It won’t fit on a bumper sticker, not even for your Volvo SUV’s fat ass.
So where do you draw the line? That magic point where a fetus becomes a human being. 4 months? 6 months? 5 minutes before they are born? That line, no matter where it is drawn, is always going to be rather arbitrary, a compromise that many if not most folks will not be happy with one way or the other. Overheated political hyperbole won’t help find that compromise.
Just 5 minutes ago, conservatives were pretending to be champtions of bodily autonomy in personal medical decisions. (covid vaccines anyone?)
Today they celebrate that autonomy being ripped away and given to unelected judges and partisan politicians.
The obvious distinction is that a decision whether or not to take a Wuhan virus vaccine doesn’t directly implicate or affect innocent human life; the decision to undergo an abortion does.
It’s a glaring distinction, and, your inability/refusal to address it reveals the dishonesty and myopia of your reasoning, as well as the manifest weakness of your intellect.
Can you point out where abortion is listed in the constitution? Asking for a friend.
Turnabout is fair play
Just 5 minutes ago, liberals were talking about my body, my choice.
Today, they celebrate vaccine mandates for all!
You misspelled Federalism.
Except, in the case of abortion, there are two distinct bodies involved. It is a biological fact.
multiple states, who were representing their voters, tried to ban abortion. The unelected SCOTUS struck down many of their attempts. This just reverts the decision back to the states to make the decision.
Um, no you have that backwards.
“My body, by choice” was the mindless battle whine of the left.
We just used the vaccine imbroglio to throw it back in their faces.
Gee, you are genuinely feeling very threatened today, aren’t you?
Perhaps you would be less triggered by moving over to Mother Jones and posting your silly arguments there.
Today they celebrate that autonomy being ripped away and given to unelected judges and partisan politicians.
If the released (leaked?) document actually reflects the decision that the SCOTUS is going to render then it simply returns the authority to make decisions regarding abortions back to the individual states and their elected officials where it should have always been.
And I find it highly amusing that you liberals always pooh poohed the idea of unelected judges legislating from the bench when it was going your way but the minute it looks as if you’re not going to get your way it’s all, “Unelected judges! Partisan politicians! WAAAAAH!” I know what I call people like you. Hypocrites. Hypocrites all.
Just 5 minutes ago, conservatives were pretending to be abhorred by judicial activism and legilsating from the bench.
Today, they celebrate the most egregious act of judicial activism in the last 50 years.
Are we a bit upset today? The pro abort side will have no trouble answering the question ‘what is a woman’ now.
Nice try, but no sale. We don’t fall for bumper sticker type slogans around here.
Let’s grant your argument that reversing a bad decision by SCOTUS is judicial activism and always a grave injustice which shouldn’t be tolerated.
Now explain why Plessy v Ferguson was reversed.
You posted this same comment four times. I have removed the fourth and will remove any future attempts to spam this exact comment again. You can express yourself as you wish within our commenting guidelines, but please do not spam our comment section in this manner. Repeatedly posting the same thing is spam. Period.
The 3 comments you left have racked up 39 total down votes and no up votes.
That’s a new LI record, isn’t it?
Does LI have a rule against bots and NPCs?
Because I think that’s what we’re dealing with now… regardless of whether or not it happens to be made of meat.
I understand Disinformation Boards are all the rage now, Fuzzy… how’d you like a promotion?
Yes, we do, that’s why you never see those “I earned fifty eleven thousand millions dollars this week online!” posts that litter most comment sections. You’re welcome.
Fuzzy, the three comments you left up are not at all the same. They are constructed in the same form, but they make different arguments. Bad arguments, but different ones. I have to assume the fourth comment you deleted made yet a fourth bad argument, but was not spam. Please undelete it (I’m pretty sure WordPress does allow that) so we can address it on its merits (or lack thereof).
You have that backwards. This decision, if the court adopts it, will finally reverse the most egregious act of judicial activism in the last 50 years.
I can see if the Court in general may at times want to time the release of an opinion to avoid influencing immediately upcoming elections. Here there is the normal practice to release the opinion before the end of the term (which is also when Justice Souter retires;) Nobody was advocating keeping the opini0n under wraps until after the November election.
Leaks from the Supreme Court are always bad and undermine our faith in the system.
Put every justice and clerk under oath and demand an unambiguous statement whether they were the leaker.
If they admit it, great.
If not, then after they find out who did it (pretty easy considering there’s less than 50 people with access to the information), then prosecute them for perjury.
You forgot the printed copy ( unsecured and can be copied itself infinitely), possibly forwarded emails with a file attached and even someone maintaining/hacking a server the file was on.
I think it more likely the intent was to focus this “investigation” only on the court and immediate clerks KNOWING there is nothing to be found. That’s a “perfect” red herring.
Possibly even to ignite a “divide and conquer” schism within the court as a second level smoke screen or other follow on agenda of its own.
I advise not jumping to the most obvious ( and highly promoted) conclusion -its too convenient.
Yes it could have been hacked. A paper recycling employee could have sold it to Politico. A Justice could have dropped a thumb drive at a cocktail party. There are many possibilities besides a Justice or a Clerk leaking it.
That is without getting into the host of glaring constitutional defects and deficiencies in the leaked opinion:
1. the glaring interstate privileges and immunities clause with sending the issue back to the states.
2. The glaring establishment clause, free exercise clause. and RFRA issues (sincerly held religious belief that includes abortion)
3. The glaring appropriations clause meets equal protection clause issue regarding healthcare funding.
4. The implications for the family planning portions of Obamacare.
5. The fifth amendment takings clause issue regarding closures of clinics in states to adopt bans.
The foolishness of the leaked opinion goes on and on.
Doctor of googling with a minor in the culinary arts of spam flambe
Why would clinics close? We have been told repeatedly that PP is a healthcare provider and that abortions represent only 3% of the services they provide.
Snap.
One of the reasons the leftist worldview is apparently collapsing all at once is that the right has a handle on every one of its contradictions now, and can trump every leftist argument being made with another of the left’s own contradictory “principles.”
Examples I have seen just today:
“This decision is an attack on women!” Can’t be, since men get pregnant, too, right? Besides, have you figured out how to define women yet?
“We need to control disinformation” — being said by the pregnant man emoji.
“Our bodies, our choices!” Then vaccine mandates are right out, aren’t they?
“Billionaires shouldn’t control major media outlets!” Like the Washington Post?
“Private companies can do what they want!” Then you won’t mind what Musk does.
“January 6 was an insurrection!” Watch the livestream from outside SCOTUS.
Massinsanity – nice to point out the misinformation promoted by PP
true abortions are only 3% of “services ”
Though that number promoted is highly deflated –
abortion is also the major profit center of the “non_profit pp
by removing R v Wade it would send it back to the states.
no religion believes in the right of abortion. (no you can’t use the made up one called Satanism)
Equal protection for the baby you mean? The baby is a separate entity and requires care.
Obamacare is not the constitution. It is unconstitutional, especially when its universal tax was removed.
No protection for businesses that close in the constitution. Anyway these clinics are sold as healthcare. No other services to survive on?
Unitarian Universalists do. Heck, I expect them the start offering the services at the alter pretty soon. They really don’t have any core values except for denouncing traditional Christians and supporting anything and everything LGBTQRSTYUVWXY and Z. Just this week here in MA, the town of Newburyport’s Youth Commission was planning to host a party for HS students featuring a drag queen singer whose most famous song is “My Coconuts”. The video for the song features him fondling his pretend boobs and simulating various sex acts including deep throating a banana. The party was to held at The Masons but when word got out on the details they backed away…. but don’t worry, the local UUC is right there to host the party and performer in the church hall!
One of my neighbors was a UU minister, served two terms on the town council, was well respected up until the day his “Tibetan rescued refugee” live-in housemaid reported him for molesting her since she was 14, primarily to force him to scuttle his plans to import several more girls for the same purposes. A few of the guys in the neighborhood wanted to dress up in sheets and burn a question mark on his lawn, but that was the week of the blizzard, plus once they took him away he never came back.
Unitarian Universalists don’t have religious support for abortion but a secular support for them. They are permissive of the action and support it politically but not religioiusly. There is a difference.
“no religion believes in the right of abortion.”
At least two sanction honor killings, which are sometimes abortions just with more collateral damage. JD (above) believes the feds must allow these because “freedom of religion.” How ludicrous.
now you are conflating honor killing of a woman and the indirect of the child with abortion. are you new to bioethics?
Murder is murder.
You’re nuts.
A complete loon.
Which indicates you are a paid marxist troll. The worst of all human beings.
You’re kidding, right? Every single one of those five points is so ridiculous nobody could seriously make them.
Re: Jd’s comments
1. There are ways not to become a parent, and I’m pretty sure he knows that.
2. This was never constitutional; it sends back to states to decide. There are multiple states who will keep abortion (sadly).
3. Right of the baby? Babies feel pain at 15 weeks.
Roberts doesn’t really want a true investigation or he does t trust the FBI
He asked the Marshall of the SC to investigate
Yes, Ace of Spades just made the same point. The Marshals provide security but as far as I know have no subpoena power, etc. They have never investigated crimes.
Sooooooo, just window dressing.
The Marshal works for an institution that most definitely has subpoena power. If the Marshal needs a subpoena I’m sure finding a judge to sign off on one won’t be difficult.
Apparently there are “US Marshals” and “Marshals of the Court,” which are not the same thing, and a lot of the reportage out there are confusing them and need to be regarded as suspect unless the reporter actually understands what s/he is talking about.
That, more than anything else, honestly makes me think it was Roberts responsible for the leak.
The marshal is the appropriate authority to look into this. If she thinks she needs the FBI’s help, it will be her job to call them and ask for it.
Thank you Donald Trump for making this day possible. Another promise delivered. (No one else is going to say it).
#meantweets2020 MAGA!!!
Fair enough.
Two buttons we need here:
1- Edit
2- Block troll/idiot/imbecile
I disagree on #2. It is important to hear from the other side, no matter how poorly their arguments are constructed.
Then you don’t use the button.
I never said anything about not hearing the other side.
It’s important to hear reasoned arguments from the other side. Lies, damned lies and intentionally insulting trolling really don’t help.
I agree. And once it’s clear that a poster is posting crap with zero reason behind it, it’s convenient to be able just to skip all the worthless static, like using the AFC button on your FM radio.
The draft was circulated 2/10/2022, Politico published 5/2/2022. I’m more interested in WHEN the draft was provided to Politico, how long did they sit on the story and WHO told them it was time to publish?
The hunt for the leaker is a distraction from the likely bigger democrat conspiracy and coverup.
The left is renewing their asking Congress to codify Roe into law.
So here is a question for the legal eagles:
What sense does it make to try to codify into law something that SCOTUS itself has told you is unconstitutional?
I dunno. You ask a larger question, which is, does the legislature give a crap about legislating on a subject for which they zero delegated authority? And I believe we all know the answer to that one.
The example I like to cite is the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990. It was struck down by SCOTUS in 1992 (US v. Lopez) on two counts: A, the legislature’s ability to write specious laws under the blanket authority of the Commerce Clause has rational limits and this law clearly exceeded them; and B, if the legislature had been using the Commerce Clause as their authority, which they argued, they needed to state so clearly in the legislation, and they did not.
What did the legislature do? They added a clause at the beginning to address B, ignored A completely, and re-passed the law otherwise verbatim in 1996.
They know full well what they are doing… and they don’t care.
Scotus has not said Roe is unconstitutional, nor does the draft opinion that you obviously have no read. The draft says that Roe was incorrectly decided, and that there’s no constitutional right to abortion. If I were emperor, Roe’s three trimester scheme would rule, but not by judicial fiat.
The error in that case was, to me, that the Court acted as a legislature. I might (actually do) support that framework, but not its imposition by the Supreme Court. To me, as a matter of legal reasoning, the Casey decision was the real mess. The “undue burden” test was, and is, a joke. One could argue (as do I) that the three-trimester framework went way too far for a judicial ruling, but at least it was clear. Casey was opaque, and I think it was a Pyhrric Victory for the pro-choice side.
This is a conservative blog, so the “no abortion” position dominates here. I get it, and believe it or not I respect the viewpoint. But I also think it’s every bit as unrealistic and maybe even offensive (don’t kill me — I don’t like the word either but can’t think of another one right now) as the “progressive” position which is kill it up to the day of birth. Maybe even beyond, if I read the laws in CA and CO correctly.
Most Americans aren’t at either end. Most people find abortion distasteful but also don’t want the government to prohibit it across the board. To me, the Roe framework made sense. Again, not as a judicial ruling, but as the way to balance the competing views.
In the end, we’re going to have about 20 states with partial or complete bans, and the rest with varying degrees of permissiveness. I see that Planned Parenthood just got a huge slug of money from one of the billionaires’ divorcees (Gates or Bezos, I’m not sure.) To me, the solution is obvious: Set up an Underground Railroad.
No one will like it one bit, but I’m not seeing a real-world alternative.
No need for an “underground railroad”. Interstate travel is a constitutionally protected right.
It was an analogy. By the way, travel is not an enumerated right.
No, it isn’t enumerated. Nobody claims that there are no protected unenumerated rights, at least not since Bork. This right has been recognized since at least 1823.
I was being snarky there. I won’t repeat my misgivings about how the draft treats the 9th amendment, but yes, I do think there’s a 9th amendment right to travel. But not necessarily on an airplane, etc.
I think the pushback here is against Liawatha’s rant that “rich women can jet to a permissive state; poor women will suffer.” Which is, of course, bullshit. Bankrupt families made their way to California during the Dust Bowl, just as homeless, drug-addled mendicants have no problem doing today. And once there, they are more than welcome to stay there.
This is what has always mystified me about homeless people in New York and Chicago, Minneapolis etc. This first thing I would do would be get enough money for a bus ticket to south of say the 33rd parallel. Not staying where it get below zero degrees Fahrenheit
Adults can freely travel to an abortion friendly State. Someone transporting a minor across State lines without consent of Parents or guardian to have an abortion may find themselves in a jam.
SCOTUS hasn’t said, and doesn’t propose to say, that the constitution protects the states’ right to ban abortion. If it adopts this decision, it will merely be saying that the constitution doesn’t forbid them from doing so. Congress could still forbid them by statute (provided it can be squeezed in under one or another of its enumerated powers, which it usually can).
No matter how all this shakes out – when Ketanji comes on, she and de Soto and maybe the softball player will form a Squad within Court and devils stuff like this will become the norm.
Ketanji will also also replace AOC as voice of rad left and actually make AOC seem half sensible.
Might I point that if the decision ad outlined in the draft holds, abortion will be left to the states. It’s not going away. It will still be available. It may not be an option after 12-15 weeks in many states. It may well be available up to birth in several states. CA, NY, Mass, and others can do as they please. What the bastards can’t stand is any power being given back to the states instead of reserved for the federal government.
You are correct and the knee jerk reaction in the decidedly D states will be to pass the most extreme abortion laws we have even seen which is tragic but not surprising in today’s political environment.
The left still years for a “national government” instead of the “federal government” deliberately designed by the founders.
Except, of course, when the “national government” doesn’t rule their way, when they want “state nullification.”
Except when a state doesn’t rule their way, when they want to repeal “state pre-emption” controlling towns and cities.
“When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.” –Thomas Jefferson
“Royalty was like dandelions. No matter how many heads you chopped off, the roots were still there underground, waiting to spring up again… It was as if even the most intelligent person had this little blank spot in their heads where someone had written, “Kings. What a good idea.” Whoever had created humanity had left in a major design flaw. It was its tendency to bend at the knees.” –TERRY PRATCHETT
What they can’t stand is that so-called ‘moderates’ won’t be able to hide their insanity anymore.
That’s the entire point of crap like Obergefell or Roe V Wade. Not that they would be ‘criminalized’, but it would mean that at the state level Democrats would actually have to take votes on the issues.
Now balance the right of the State to exercise its compelling interest. Then add the right of the child to due process. Now add the the right of the Father.
Tell you what, if you get all the pro abortion folks to spend half their energy, time and money to dismantle the concept of paternity and any financial or other duty or obligation of the Father without his consent I might take you more seriously. But you and they won’t, because you and they view abortion as a bizarre fetish.
The question is whether this will be a “round up the usual suspects” type of investigation or one where everyone who had access to this draft will have their phones and computers checked for the smoking gun
If a printed copy was leaked the investigators will figure out when and where it was printed, since that info is coded in microdot code in all printers. If it was a digital copy, different info will be discovered. Or maybe a paper recycling employee sells draft decisions to Politico on the side and will be discovered by email or phone messages.
Yeah, but you need the copy in hand to find the microdots. Of course, Politico will claim First Amendment privilege.
Ace points out Roberts didn’t sick the FBI on the case ( safe for him as it’s no doubt a Leftist and a friend of the FBI) but the Marshall of the court who has 0 capabilities to crack the case which is also in Roberts favor.
Roberts is on the other side.
Always has been, just like the POS that put him there, Bush.
Some predictions:
1. If they can identify a leaker within the court (I.E., a clerk) the punishment will be minor to nonexistent and the marxist party (AKA Democrat) will celebrate and elevate the person.
2. Should the predicted result come to pass, the marxist states will pay for women from other states to come there for the baby killing.
3. The leak was planned well in advance and held for the right time.
4. Democrats Sinema and Manchin will cave to the D mob.
4a. Maybe 🙂
Heh, I don’t think Manchin will vote to ditch the filibuster to keep abortion from going back to the states. He’s pretty adamant about what can be put in a reconciliation bill, including when it’s about things he later votes to pass (but don’t because he didn’t ditch the filibuster).
It’s not just Manchin. Republicans will be in charge pretty soon and the tide against the Dems is staring them right in the face. They will fail in any attempt to counter this ruling or expand the Supreme Court to 15 judges. And for what? Whoever becomes the Senate Leader will almost certainly keep the non-filibuster environment long enough to reverse all of the toxic decisions that get through into December 31 and then for enough GOP agenda items and that will remind everyone why the filibuster is such a good idea.
The Dems may put on a major tantrum for show for the rest of the year but they have already lost.
He’s made it clear today as has Sinema. OTOH, they are demoncrats…
However, that was what 4a was for as I knew that they had stated otherwise.
Don’t depend on Sinema. She is, after all, a Democrat woman… as far as I can determine without being an actual biologist.
henry, you can just identify as a biologist…
Alito’s error filled and logically fallacious draft opinion arguement that “abortion is not in the constittuion” fails under even minimal 9th amendment scrutiny.
Amendmnet IX
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The Ninth Amendment was James Madison’s attempt to ensure that the Bill of Rights was not seen as granting to the people of the United States only the specific rights it addressed. In recent years, some have interpreted it as affirming the existence of such “unenumerated” rights outside those expressly protected by the Bill of Rights.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/ninth_amendment
You keep using that Amendment.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Seriously you keep reposting the same drivel. Find something else, it’s boring, it’s wrong and we have refuted it on multiple times. Go away if you don’t have a new argument.
The 9th is kinda-sorta the ugly stepchild of the Bill of Rights, or maybe a Rorschach test. There has to be (or should be) some standard for a right to be recognized under the 9th. The draft says such a right must be “objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”
That has a lot of surface appeal, but might be too cramped. Hard to say, and in the case of the 9th I think the answer lies in how it’s been applied over time. In any case, it’s not an argument to simply pop in and shout “9th amendment.”
Is there a 9th amendment right to abortion? I don’t think so, but I do think there’s a 9th amendment right to bodily autonomy in the context of private decisions. It’s not (to me) any kind of absolute right, but I’m okay with a 9th amendment right that covers abortion to some degree.
I am still digesting the draft, but on first read I think Alito was cavalier about the 9th, and actually trivialized it by couching it purely as a right to abortion rather than as the right to make intensely personal decisions for one’s self.
Again, by no means an unlimited right, but as I think about the draft, I am thinking it goes too far against the 9th.
Sigh. Alito painstakingly addresses the ninth amendment. Yes, the 9th amendment protects unenumerated rights. Of course it does. That’s what it says. But which rights? Do you imagine we can just make them up as we please?!
The rights the 9th amendment protects are those that were universally accepted in the 1790s, and which were not enumerated only because it never occurred to anyone that they needed to be. The Bill of Rights lists those rights its drafters thought Congress was likely to infringe. It omits those rights they never thought Congress would ever want to infringe, but the 9th says those are still rights too. So if there was a right to abortion in the 1790s there still would be today; but Alito carefully proves that there wasn’t, so how can you think there is one now? Where did it come from? The strawberry patch?!
By treating it as a “right to abortion” rather than a “right to bodily autonomy,” or a “right to make personal decisions for one’s self,” I think the draft does damage to the 9th. It’s a bit analagous to arguing that the first amendment covers only material written in longhand with a quill pen on parchment, and excludes other forms of dissemination.
There are still good arguments against Roe and Casey, and against abortion being included within a “right to bodily autonomy” (my words, not theirs), but the draft doesn’t take the 9th seriously enough, IMO.
And yes, there has to be (or should be) a standard for applying the 9th, or we could have some California court finding a right to no more than 300 ppm of CO2, or a right to shoelaces, or a right to methamphetamine. But I’m not buying the draft’s long discussion of how abortion has been treated in the past.
That’s incredibly dangerous reasoning, because using it guts the 2nd Amendment. No carrying cartridge-loaded firearms for you, the modern metal-cased rifle cartridge was invented in 1847, and the framers thus could not have meant carrying such weapons.
No, because the 9th Amendment isn’t the 2nd Amendment, which covers that.
It’s like arguing that the 9th Amendment guts the 3rd Amendment because there was no universally accepted right not to be ordered to house soldiers. There wasn’t, that’s why the 3rd is there.
“juris doctor” is just another mental case that thinks his supervisors typed trash is sensible.
So the 9th amendment becomes some sort of constitutional Rorshach test where you can read into it any rights your heart desires? We have explicit rights listed in the bill-of-rights itself that politically motivated sophists can somehow reason out of existence. Some ephemeral “unenumerated” rights left up to the imagination of legal egg-heads? Good luck with that.
One word:
Kabuki
Alito’s error riddled draft opinion contains no 9th amendment analysis despite the opinion acknowldging that Roe found the 9th amendment to be a separate and independent basis for its conclusions.
Put a cork in it. It isn’t going to get truer just because you keep repeating it.
Sure it does. It shows that there was no universally accepted right to abortion when the 9th amendment was adopted. Therefore it can’t be one of the rights the 9th protects.
NUTS
The unenumerated right that abortion fell under wasn’t the right to abortion- it was the right to privacy, which is a well recognized unenumerated right. The 4th amendment pretty much covers the right to privacy without actually using the words private or privacy. The decision shoehorned abortion into that right of privacy, saying abortion was purely a private matter deserving privacy. And federal courts ever since have expanded the right to an abortion not only to the point that it can be performed a second before actual birth and be legal, but in some states will rescind licenses to practice medicine of health professionals who refuse to participate in abortions. And virtually every court decision twists words and call the ending of a human life in the womb “healthcare”. And- every single jurist who says we should rely on foreign court decisions to interpret our Constitution (RBG anyone?) somehow fails to notice that all these enlightened European countries that we should rely upon have what our courts have repeatedly called “onerous restriction on abortions”.
The shoehorning of abortion into the “right of privacy” is what gave Roe v Wade any legitimacy at all. Because that made it not a right to abortion, which certainly didn’t exist at the time the Constitution was adopted, but a right to privacy- that indubitably did exist.
“The decision shoehorned abortion into that right of privacy, saying abortion was purely a private matter deserving privacy.”
Despite the fact that many people believe it involves two beings, not just one.
Is child abuse or infanticide a privacy right? The question is obvious and the answer always boils down to a matter of faith and politics, not a matter of science.
My, what a gay smile our Chief Justice has.
I was listening to Steve Bannon talk to a person that had worked at SCOTUS. He said that the SCOTUS had it’s own Law Enforcement Group that cares for them, their building, their equipment, and issues. He said they would investigate and then get the FBI to assist. It was not just a hand-off to the FBI. He figured it was likely a Law Clerk of Sotomayor as they were more left radical clerks,
The very same FBI that’s been corrupted by the left and is in ideological agreement with the leaker?
As far as the leak goes, it’s immaterial right now. If they get to the bottom of it, great. If not, move on.