Image 01 Image 03

Leaked Draft Supreme Court Opinion Overturns Roe v. Wade, Politico Reports

Leaked Draft Supreme Court Opinion Overturns Roe v. Wade, Politico Reports

The leak is the thing. It’s egregious, and clearly meant to give liberal groups almost two months before the term ends at the end of June to pressure the Court much like there was a pressure campaign against Chief Justice Roberts on Obamacare. -- Public Domain

I’ve never seen an actual draft opinion leak from the U.S. Supreme Court. Not even what the vote will be — remember everyone waiting for the 2012 Obamacare decision and then speed reading it?

Obamacare was small potatoes compared to ABORTION. We’ve covered the Mississippi case that many speculated would result in Roe v. Wade being overturned.

Politico says it got its hands on a draft majority Opinion by Justice Alito overturning Roe v. Wade. When I first heard it, I figured it was just speculation, but Politico has the draft and it sure looks real:

The Supreme Court has voted to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito circulated inside the court and obtained by POLITICO.

The draft opinion is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision – Planned Parenthood v. Casey – that largely maintained the right. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito writes.

“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 draft is from February 10, 2022, so who knows how many votes there are for it, maybe it was just Alito’s attempt to bring others on board.

But the leak is the thing. It’s egregious, and clearly meant to give liberal groups almost two months before the term ends at the end of June to pressure the Court much like there was a pressure campaign against Chief Justice Roberts on Obamacare.




Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


The most obvious suspect in this leak is the court’s newest member. You don’t have to be a biologist to be a political hack!

    irv in reply to irv. | May 2, 2022 at 9:27 pm

    Unless this is just fake news intended to rally the troops!

      rabid wombat in reply to irv. | May 2, 2022 at 9:30 pm

      My first thought, also. Too much, too soon…use the hullabaloo to pressure Roberts and any other in the middle….

      Yeah, my first thought too. Some clever lawyer wrote up a fake and snuck it to the Politico, who immediately did the “Too good to check” routine on it.

        (Revised) – Ok, if some clever lawyer wrote up a fake, they are *darned* smart. Josh Blackburn picks this thing apart in Reason and it’s a lot more complicated and well-reasoned than one would expect from a fake. Perhaps it’s even… real?

    pfg in reply to irv. | May 2, 2022 at 9:43 pm

    It’s possible given that Democrats are despicably underhanded. But while she may be confirmed, she’s not a justice yet so wouldn’t have access to the Court’s inner sanctums. So as a commenter below mentions, it’s likely one of the rabid lefty clerks of the Wide Latina or Kagan who leaked with tacit approval.

      irv in reply to pfg. | May 2, 2022 at 11:00 pm

      True but … If I was in an important post and was going to retire, I would make my staff and records available to my chosen successor in order to make for a smooth transition.

      On the other hand, it’s quite possible that, as has been suggested, a clerk or other longer-time insider leaked it. They already have access.

        Milhouse in reply to irv. | May 3, 2022 at 1:17 am

        That makes no sense at all. First of all, Jackson is not going to “take over” from Breyer. She will be a brand new justice, not anyone’s “successor”. He leaves, creates a vacancy, and she fills it. She will not take over his staff; she’s have to hire her own. She may not get his office either; if another justice wants it they’ll move in and she’ll get theirs instead.

        Second, for him to disclose anything to someone who is not currently on the court would be a grave breach of propriety and confidentiality, in principle enough to get him disbarred or impeached. He’s never given any sign of being the kind of person who would do that.

          Joe-dallas in reply to Milhouse. | May 3, 2022 at 9:31 am

          Milhouse – its ridiculous that you get so many down votes. Your statement is factually correct. too many unhinged comments by individuals who lack subject matter knowledge.
          Thanks for being the voice of reason

    The Gentle Grizzly in reply to irv. | May 2, 2022 at 10:19 pm

    She’s not even seated yet.

    CommoChief in reply to irv. | May 2, 2022 at 10:30 pm

    Amy Coney Barrett is the most recently sworn Justice; the newest member.

    Ghostrider in reply to irv. | May 2, 2022 at 11:05 pm

    Matt Wolking has reported this guy:

    A person called Amit Jain clerks
    for Supreme Court Justice Sonia

    As a Yale student, Jain blasted
    Yale for supporting Brett
    Kavanaugh’s nomination.
    Jain was quoted in a 2017
    Politico piece by Josh Gerstein.

    Today, Gerstein published the
    draft SCOTUS opinion on Roe.

      Steven Brizel in reply to Ghostrider. | May 3, 2022 at 1:07 pm

      This is an obvious and glaring starting point. Reporters depend on contacts and relationships for leaks and sources

    Milhouse in reply to irv. | May 3, 2022 at 1:08 am

    The most obvious suspect in this leak is the court’s newest member. You don’t have to be a biologist to be a political hack!

    You seriously suspect Amy Barrett?!

    puhiawa in reply to irv. | May 3, 2022 at 1:44 am

    No. It is Sotomayor.

    chrisboltssr in reply to irv. | May 3, 2022 at 1:57 am

    I would like to believe this, but the Affirmative Action hire isn’t on the Supreme Court yet. This was probably done by the other Affirmative Action hire Sonia Sotomayor or one or her lackeys.

    taurus the judge in reply to irv. | May 3, 2022 at 8:04 am

    Not necessarily Irv, the “leak” ( defined as the draft which was sent to Politico) may have been done externally to the court.

    The circulation date is 10 Feb. so its been “out” for 3 months roughly. There is no telling how many hands ( Justices, clerks, IT people) or how many “printed copies” have been created and circulated all over DC.

    The copy posted on Politico is from a scanned paper document so it could have come literally from anywhere.

    That raises the next question ( or point)

    This document has been read and digested for MONTHS now so its a safe bet all the “players” (left and right) have long known the contents.

    That means this is a planned and timely executed “leak” not a “spur of the moment” leak.

    I would guess this is an emotionally charged red herring designed to wake up the useful idiots and get them stirring trouble either to take the heat off the current issues or as a preemptive strike against a ruling suspected to happen shortly ( or both)

    WindyHill in reply to irv. | May 3, 2022 at 8:45 am

    The court’s newest member is Amy Coney Barrett. The one just confirmed will not become a justice until Justice Breyer retires.

    Joe-dallas in reply to irv. | May 3, 2022 at 8:49 am

    The newest member of the Court is Barrett,
    The non biologists is not yet a justice

    aramissebastian in reply to irv. | May 3, 2022 at 9:12 am

    Let’s the honest, the leak is a side issue compared with the magnitude of the decision itself.

    To me, the unprecedented nature of the leak simply highlights the enormous stresses on our political system of our divided politics.

    Under that strain, institutions are compromised in one way or another, and lose their legitimacy, one way or the other . . .

      Milhouse in reply to aramissebastian. | May 3, 2022 at 9:47 am

      No, it isn’t a side issue. The leak is the issue. No decision has yet been made, and a 3-month-old proposed decision is not a legitimate issue.

        aramissebastian in reply to Milhouse. | May 3, 2022 at 10:01 am

        Let me put it this way: assuming Roe v. Wade in fact is overruled, do you think anyone is going to care about the leak?

          AnAdultInDiapers in reply to aramissebastian. | May 3, 2022 at 3:06 pm


          The court must be independent and free from public pressure. The public elect politicians who can change the law (including the constitution), the public don’t get to dictate court decisions based on that law.

          It’s bad enough that Roberts allegedly refused to hear Texas’ case on the 2020 election because he feared public riots, but that’s also set a precedent that the court can be influenced by the threat of riots.

          Guess what’s now going to happen. That’s why the leak matters.

      dmacleo in reply to aramissebastian. | May 3, 2022 at 10:00 am

      leak has given social justice warriors a huge amount of time to riot and attempt to influence the court when it actually DOES make a decision.
      the leak is a huge issue, this is bad.

        aramissebastian in reply to dmacleo. | May 3, 2022 at 10:30 am

        Not like overruling Roe wasn’t a 25 year project on the right, speaking of “huge amount of time” and “attempt to influence the court”?

        And do you really think that any civil unrest that results from the leak will be any worse than from the actual overruling of Roe?

        And do you really think the members of the Court who want to overrule Roe don’t know how upset they will make people? And don’t care anyway?

    herm2416 in reply to irv. | May 3, 2022 at 10:22 am

    She isn’t a member….only confirmed, I’ve never seen someone confirmed before a vacancy. The draft was written in February, then the rush to confirm to a spot which wasn’t open. Are they trying to pack the court now, before a decision is handed down? She would vote to uphold Roe, and Roberts is signaling the same. 6-4 decision.

      Milhouse in reply to herm2416. | May 3, 2022 at 11:24 am

      Confirming someone before a vacancy happens fairly regularly. It’s not controversial at all. Appointing someone before a vacancy, as Biden has done in this case, is rarer, but the OLC says it’s legit, and points to examples where it has been done and nobody objected. Of course the appointment is of no effect until the vacancy materializes.

#1, The Wide Latina
#2, Kagan

Like a Mafia don who didn’t do the dirty work, only ordering that it be done, these two gave the wink & nod order to one of their clerks.

I don’t suspect Breyer. While I don’t like/agree with his thinking, I do think he has a certain degree of honor.

While Roberts and honor don’t mix, I wouldn’t think he would ever want “his court” to be known as the first court to have allowed a leak.

Whoever leaked this needs to be crucified. Literally. On tv.

I Will believe it when I see it

If this is legit, I’m certain the left leaked it to fire up the mobs and riots for another summer of fun.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair | May 2, 2022 at 9:45 pm

Someone needs to beat the leaker out of Politico, to start, Obviously, it was a dissenter but the question that is important is whether it was at the behest of one of the “justices” (most of them are jokes) or just some despicable staffer (like someone on Roberts’ staff who is doing the treasonous work that Roberts can’t do – this one time).

Personally, my money is on the wise, empathetic latina or the new Farangi Whatever chick.

If Roe is overturned, then Ruth Ginsburg will have been proven correct. IIRC, RGB’s confirmation to the SCOTUS was viciously opposed by the radical fems. esp NARAL. They accused her of being too “moderate” and what really P***ed them off was that she felt that Roe had been poorly decided. She felt that “right of privacy” was questionable and “equal protection’ was much stronger argument. (IANAL and a few years ago I tried to look up contemporaneous articles about RBG confirmation and it seems to have been scrubbed. I guess after obtaining Prog. Sainthood, the record needed correction)

Juris Doctor | May 2, 2022 at 9:56 pm

I rarely if ever agree with Sotomayor. That being said, the draft opinion is a statement of religious doctrine and not a document that is grounded in science, medicine, or constitutional law. The strict wall of separation between church and state has collapsed and that collapse has first taken place in the United States Supreme Court.

    johnny dollar in reply to Juris Doctor. | May 2, 2022 at 10:22 pm

    The opinion appears to be based primarily on the indisputable fact that there is no mention of abortion in the constitution. Where do you find Justice Alito ascribing a religious belief within the opinion? The entire opinion is a scholarly dissection of hundreds of years of legal precedent.
    Your characterization of it as being religiously based is clearly wrong.
    Here is the essence of the opinion:
    “We end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”

    CommoChief in reply to Juris Doctor. | May 2, 2022 at 10:36 pm

    No not at all, you are wish casting. The entire (draft) opinion provides the actual legal and statutory history so lacking in Roe that clearly points out how much Roe was a mere creation of Judicial Power untethered from any constitutional basis. It further eviscerated Casey as a stopgap decision that undercut the reasoning not Roe and instead of overturning it simply replaced Roe’s reasoning with Casey’s equally bad reasoning.

    txvet2 in reply to Juris Doctor. | May 2, 2022 at 11:05 pm

    “”The strict wall of separation between church and state has collapsed””

    A wall that never existed except in the minds of leftist lunatics.

      Close The Fed in reply to txvet2. | May 2, 2022 at 11:12 pm

      Hear! Hear!

      alaskabob in reply to txvet2. | May 3, 2022 at 12:01 am

      Only in a private letter written by Thomas Jefferson.

        txvet2 in reply to alaskabob. | May 3, 2022 at 12:16 am


        Milwaukee in reply to alaskabob. | May 3, 2022 at 1:19 am

        His concern about a wall between Church and State, was to keep the state out of the business of the church. Not to keep the church, and church people, to keep their values out of the state.

          aramissebastian in reply to Milwaukee. | May 3, 2022 at 8:51 am

          Has it not occurred to you that it’s a two-way street?

          Once church people become political, they become actors in the political system like any other . . .

          So, if you look at 20th Century Russia and Spain, where there was a close connection between the Church and the State, you see priests and believers becoming victims of political persecution . . .

          Barry in reply to Milwaukee. | May 3, 2022 at 12:02 pm

          “Has it not occurred to you that it’s a two-way street?”


    Juris Doctor: do you have the same ‘doctorate’ as Dr. Jill Biden?

    chrisboltssr in reply to Juris Doctor. | May 3, 2022 at 2:00 am

    This is beyond stupid and I’m willing to bet you haven’t even read a word of the draft opinion.

    Sanddog in reply to Juris Doctor. | May 3, 2022 at 5:16 am

    It seems you didn’t read the draft. And why are you bringing up science or medicine? The only thing that matters is the Constitution and there was nothing in the Constitution that even remotely suggested women have a right to kill their offspring.

      aramissebastian in reply to Sanddog. | May 3, 2022 at 9:04 am

      There’s a lot that’s not in the Constitution . . .

      Like automatic weapons . . .

      What if I told you that your right to bear arms was limited to an 18th Century musket?

      Or, that the death penalty was appropriate for any felony? Because this was the state of the law at the relevant time . . .

        Milhouse in reply to aramissebastian. | May 3, 2022 at 9:54 am

        The constitution says “arms”, not “muskets”. Automatic weapons are arms, so they are in the constitution.

        A death penalty for every felony is constitutional, unless you subscribe to the theory that “cruel and unusual” was understood at the time and deliberately intended to be a moving standard.

        However Sanddog is correct that neither science nor medicine are relevant here. All that matters is the constitution’s text, and there’s nothing in there that justifies Roe or Casey.

          aramissebastian in reply to Milhouse. | May 3, 2022 at 10:12 am

          Today, the death penalty is unconstitutional for all but the most heinous felonies.

          That was not so when it was drafted and ratified:

          “by 1800 there were 200 offences punishable by hanging. Perhaps inevitably, the majority of these were what we would see as minor offences. People were hanged for offences ranging from perjury, to ‘impersonating another to receive a seaman’s wage’, to destroying silk on a loom, to the theft of sheep and cattle.”

          aramissebastian in reply to Milhouse. | May 3, 2022 at 10:15 am

          In fairness, if you’re trying to be consistent, I think you have to define the term ‘arms’ as it was meant by the drafters — musket; not automatic weapons.

          Otherwise, what’s to stop you from defining any of the terms in the Constitution any way you want to achieve your desired result.

        CommoChief in reply to aramissebastian. | May 3, 2022 at 11:48 am

        What if I told you your free speech was limited to the spoken word in front of a crowd and the words written or printed on a piece of paper; no electronics allowed? It isn’t of course because the framers didn’t place technological limitations on the exercise of rights.

        Your argument does not hold water. Not for speech, not for arms, not for quartering Soldiers in a modern home, not for jury trial. Not for requiring a warrant to search technology that didn’t exist at the time.

        It’s a specious argument made by sophomores not by grown ups.

        “There’s a lot that’s not in the Constitution . . .”

        There’s a lot that is in the constitution. One of if not the greatest documents ever written by man.

        The rest of your comment is at the same level as dung.

        Arminius in reply to aramissebastian. | May 4, 2022 at 9:30 am

        Why is it know-nothings like you imagine the founders weren’t aware of the fact that repeating arms with high rates of fire had existed for well over a century? The Kalthof repeater was the first magazine fed firearm ever adopted for military service in 1648. The magazine capacity could vary from 5 to 50 rounds, and it operated by manipulating the trigger guard either forward or back or swinging it out to the side.. It fired as fast as you could pull the trigger and was very effective. It was very expensive, unfortunately and while various royal guard units were equipped with them it was too expensive for general issue. Various windbuchse or high powered, large bore air rifles were used by European royalty as hunting weapons capable of taking the largest European game had also been used for at least that long if not longer. Some of these were repeating arms, as it wasn’t all that difficult to fit them with simple gravity-fed magazines and a sliding breech mechanism. Bit it wasn’t until an Austrian inventor named Bartolomeo Girandoni had developed a design that was sufficiently reliable and rugged enough to be a general issue rifle, although of a specific type. The Austrian army adopted it in 1780 and issued it to snipers.

        It had a 22 round magazine, was approximately .46 caliber, with a useful range out to approx. 150 yards. It was in short as powerful and as accurate as the black powder sniper rifles already in use. The air flask was actually the butt stock which could be unscrewed and the sniper had two spare flasks as standard issue. Each was good for about 30 shots before the power began to wane noticeably as the air pressure subsided. The magazine could be rapidly replenished as the rifleman’s standard kit included two “speed loaders” (tubes containing a full load of 22 balls) that were simply poured into the magazine.

        They were so effective that Napoleon threatened to execute any Austrian soldier he captured with one. And note the date. The rifle was adopted by the Austrian army 7 years before the Constitution was ratified. Of course the founders would have known all this; we had ambassadors in Europe both during and after the revolution and one of their duties was to remain apprised of advances in military technology. The second amendment was most certainly not about single shot muskets as historically illiterate gun grabbers who don’t know the state of the technology just assume.

        Thomas Jefferson’s Corps of Discovery led by Lewis and Clarke was equipped with a Girandoni air rifle that was for sale in a Philadelphia instrument shop. Lewis and Clark reported that the Indian tribes they encountered were astounded when they demonstrated its power and rate of fire. I guess nobody had your amazing insights into the legalities of the situation. Nobody from President to the members of the Corps of Discovery to the Philadelphia shopkeeper knew this was an illegal weapon! The only legal weapons back then, according to the finest 21st century legal minds, were single shot muskets.

        Note I left out crew served weapons such as the circa 1716 Puckle gun, a gun similar in concept to the Gatling gun as it relied on a hand crank to operate a revolving cylinder. Unlike the Gatling gun it had a single barrel. It wasn’t a commercial success to say the least but if an American could find one he could own it. Because Americans could own cannons, despite what that senile dimwit in the WH keeps saying.

    No, it is grounded in it being a moral issue. This opinion clearly states that this is an issue for the people to decide and so sends it to the states to deal with. Science has no more to do with this than does economics. I’m not a lawyer but I’m sure what I just said is correct. I can read.

    taurus the judge in reply to Juris Doctor. | May 3, 2022 at 7:14 am

    There is no such thing as “separation BETWEEN church and state”- its the separation OF church and state (no national religion). Its also not “separation of church FROM state either”.

    rebelgirl in reply to Juris Doctor. | May 3, 2022 at 9:40 am

    Because occasionally religious doctrine and legal truth agree?

    mbecker908 in reply to Juris Doctor. | May 3, 2022 at 10:17 am

    I’ll take Josh’s opinion over your foolishness…

    JOSH BLACKMAN: I’ve Finished Reading The Apparent Dobbs Draft Opinion. “After my spate of blog posts from Monday evening (1, 2, 3, 4), I took the time to read the apparent Dobbs draft opinion. It is a tour de force. Justice Alito meticulously dissects, and forcefully responds to, every conceivable position in favor of retaining Roe and Casey. I could teach an entire law school seminar class on this opinion. It touches on nearly every facet of constitutional law. Moreover, the opinion carefully addresses the concerns of other members of the majority.”

      (points up) This.
      Also, from what I understand (and a little squinting) this is a leak of the paper copy, which is several months old. All it would take is some schlub back in the copy room to print an extra color copy of the draft to sneak out of the building. Backtracking the poor schlub will be practically trivial if the printer uses MIC (Machine Identity Codes) to print tiny little yellow dots on each copy, which if I remember right is how they tracked down Reality Winner.

      Will be watching the resulting mess with interest.

    Steven Brizel in reply to Juris Doctor. | May 3, 2022 at 1:10 pm

    The draft can be traced to the views of such eminent scholars as Alexander Bickel, John Hart Ely Robert Bork and even Lawrence Tribe-all of who had very negative views of Roe v Wade as wrongfully decided and poorly grounded in principles of constitutional law

Juris Doctor | May 2, 2022 at 9:59 pm

Oh and thanks to the leaked opinion, abortion will be codified into federal statutory law before midterms courtesy of the democrat majority in the house and senate and the dunce in the white house.

    gonzotx in reply to Juris Doctor. | May 2, 2022 at 10:04 pm

    I don’t think so

    ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to Juris Doctor. | May 2, 2022 at 10:05 pm

    But it won’t be a federal issue. That’s the point. Thta’s why Roe was at the SCOTUS, to begin with. It’s a state issue and will just return to its rightful place.

    The Gentle Grizzly in reply to Juris Doctor. | May 2, 2022 at 10:08 pm

    Mmmm… no. There are too many Democrats sugar skirting the fine line of losing their office. I don’t think they will touch this at all.

    “abortion will be codified into federal statutory law”

    No. Frapping. Way. Will. That. Happen.

      Juris Doctor in reply to pfg. | May 2, 2022 at 11:27 pm

      Bill already passed in the house in September. Enjoy!

        Close The Fed in reply to Juris Doctor. | May 2, 2022 at 11:40 pm

        The Senate is a slow walk in the worst of times, any one senator can put ahold on it.

          Milwaukee in reply to Close The Fed. | May 3, 2022 at 1:21 am

          This time the left has the fire of moral certitude. By God, they need to do this to us for our own good, damn it. They care about the party, and party goals, and will sacrifice the nation so they can sacrifice babies in the womb.

        Milhouse in reply to Juris Doctor. | May 3, 2022 at 1:25 am

        Meaningless theater. They know it will never pass the senate.

        Arminius in reply to Juris Doctor. | May 4, 2022 at 9:50 am

        Further to Milhouse’s point that it won’t pass in the Senate, the Dems clearly know this. That’s why Elizabeth Warren was making the rounds on the cable networks claiming it was important to get Republicans on record. Great idea Lizzie! Throw those Repubs in that briar patch. About only a fifth of Americans want to outlaw abortion entirely. But less then that are in favor of the left’s fever dream of abortion on demand up to the point a woman is actually giving birth. Most Americans would prefer abortion laws like the Mississippi law that allows elective abortions up to 15 weeks (and which is actually aligned with abortion laws in most EU nations; what the left wants is fittingly more like the laws in communist China and North Korea than the civilized world).

        Also, they’re never going to impeach the conservative judges for “perjury.” None of them ever promised they’d never overturn Roe v. Wade. Stare Decisis is never an absolute bar to reversing an opinion. Schumer is just throwing red meat to the dogs of his base.

How many tens of millions have these prog freaks murdered? I’m surprised more haven’t gone Old Testament on them yet.

Let them riot… the whole country will see that they won’t be arrested and compare the Jan 6 protesters

Juris Doctor | May 2, 2022 at 10:11 pm

The reasoning of the leaked opinion is also unsound, You cannot simultaneously have a substantive due process right to privacy in intimate relations (Lawrence v. Texas; Obergafell), to contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut), and right to rear children (Troxel v. Granville), and not also have the right to terminate a pregnancy.

    CommoChief in reply to Juris Doctor. | May 2, 2022 at 10:43 pm

    Killing babies is quite different from same sex marriage or consensual sex between adults, use of contraception and the fundamental right of Parents to raise their children without interference by the whim of 3rd parties.

    To suggest otherwise shows your ignorance. WTF did go to law school MR JD?

      Juris Doctor in reply to CommoChief. | May 2, 2022 at 11:27 pm

      The scientific illteracy of the pro life movement will be its undoing.

        alaskabob in reply to Juris Doctor. | May 3, 2022 at 12:05 am

        Hint: You aren’t a doctor or biologist… that later a position is by a future SCOTUS justice. Maybe you wish to discuss the present infanticide laws being proposed where a baby i not human nor protected after birth?

        Colonel Travis in reply to Juris Doctor. | May 3, 2022 at 12:26 am

        Not sure how desiring that a human life be able to live that life is “scientifically illiterate.” If you’re going to use that term, it belongs to the other side. They describe the early stages of human life as anything but human.

        Evil Otto in reply to Juris Doctor. | May 3, 2022 at 5:55 am

        You didn’t provide a scientific argument. Instead, you insulted.

      aramissebastian in reply to CommoChief. | May 3, 2022 at 9:18 am

      JD is absolutely correct notwithstanding your blistering retort.

      The juridical basis of Roe was the very same right to privacy that protects the use of contraceptives by married persons in the privacy of their own home.

      To you, they may be very different issues, and distinguishable in lots of ways.

      But legally that’s not the case.

      Think of it this way — is there a right to use contraceptives specifically enumerated in the Constitution?

      No there isn’t. So, applying Alito’s reasoning, contraception is a state-by-state issue.

        johnny dollar in reply to aramissebastian. | May 3, 2022 at 9:33 am

        The states are free to enact “privacy” based laws as they see fit.
        It is intellectually dishonest to claim, as did the Court in Griswold, Roe, and Obergefell (sp?) that these exercises in judicial activism have any basis in the Constitution.
        It seems to me to be sound reasoning that if you are proposing that a legal “right” is found in the Constitution, though not explicitly stated, it ought not to be something that would have been considered illegal at the time of the writing of the Constitution .
        Homosexuality and abortion can be so described.
        It is idiotic to suggest that Madison, or any other founding father, considered those particular forms of behavior to be implicit in the text of the Constitution.

        Milhouse in reply to aramissebastian. | May 3, 2022 at 10:01 am

        No, he is not correct. Griswold descends ultimately, and ironically, from Lochner; they both rest on substantive due process. But regardless of ones opinion of them, or of the whole notion of substantive due process, or the privileges and immunities clause, or the ninth amendment in general, this proposed decision still stands, for the same reason that all laws against murder still stand.

        Not even the broadest right to privacy includes a right to rob, rape, or murder people. And that is what abortion is.

        CommoChief in reply to aramissebastian. | May 3, 2022 at 10:25 am

        What you are attempting to argue is the same flawed argument of elastic or stretchy use of emanations and penumbras that even supporters of the outcome of Roe deride as bad logic and unsupportable.

        Contraceptives were in use prior to the founding; sheep gut condoms as one example. In an intimate and private act such as sexual intercourse between two consenting adults in their own bedroom there doesn’t appear to be a compelling State interest to prohibit use of contraception.

        That is what your side ignores; the presence of a compelling State interest in prohibition of prenatal infanticide. Even granting your reasoning then at best there must be a competing claim for due process rights on behalf of the in utero person that must be overcome.

        I get it folks on your side have had 50 years of success in adopting and defending Roe. That success appears to be at an end. But this decision, assuming it is enacted, simply puts abortion back to the States.

        Each State Legislature and their electorate will be deciding the way forward based on the culture and politics of their State. The laboratories of democracy will be reinvigorated; what’s wrong with that?

          aramissebastian in reply to CommoChief. | May 3, 2022 at 10:45 am

          So, what you’re now discussing is the standard of review for a constitutionally protected right:

          The standards of review are as follows:

          Under rational basis review, the most common and lowest level of scrutiny, a court asks only whether a governmental regulation might serve some “legitimate” governmental interest.

          Under intermediate scrutiny, applied to such issues as content-neutral regulation of speech — the court requires that the government show that the regulation serves an “important” interest.

          Strict scrutiny, however, requires the government to demonstrate that it is using the most narrowly tailored, or least restrictive, means to achieve an interest that is compelling. Although not explicitly defined, “compelling” is obviously intended to be a higher interest than “legitimate” or “important”; some have described it as “necessary” or “crucial,” meaning more than an exercise of discretion or preference.

          Griswold held that the state could not demonstrate a compelling interest in prohibiting the use of contraceptives in the marital home and therefore invalidated the law.

          The decision was premised on a finding that the use of contraceptives in the marital home fell within the constitutionally protected right to privacy and therefore required the highest level of scrutiny.

          I don’t know the history of this particular Connecticut law, but presumably, it passed muster under the lesser standards of review.

          CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | May 3, 2022 at 2:25 pm


          I am familiar with levels of scrutiny to be applied. The (draft) opinion addresses your points and refutes them much more clearly than I can. I suggest you reread the opinion in its entirety.

    Close The Fed in reply to Juris Doctor. | May 2, 2022 at 11:30 pm

    Who on God’s Green earth believes SCOTUS was correct in deciding. Obergefell? By bestowing “marriage” on all manner of dysfunctional people, the court single handedly made it legal to sell children to homosexuals incapable q providing a normal upbringing to children.

    in fact, the court made it legal to create children, using IVF, for the sole purpose of satisfying the desires of dysfunctional people, and purposefully denying these children their birthright of heterosexuality which is their birthright by their DNA.

    It further killed many Christian charities adoption programs,

    Obergefell is a termite colony to our American culture.

    Milhouse in reply to Juris Doctor. | May 3, 2022 at 1:27 am

    Sure you can, just as you can have all those rights without also having a right to terminate your children after they’re born. There’s no difference.

    Sanddog in reply to Juris Doctor. | May 3, 2022 at 5:24 am

    So the right to raise children also includes the right to kill them? Where is the logic in that?

    Steven Brizel in reply to Juris Doctor. | May 3, 2022 at 1:39 pm

    The draft can be traced to the views of such eminent scholars as Alexander Bickel, John Hart Ely Robert Bork and even Lawrence Tribe-all of who had very negative views of Roe v Wade as wrongfully decided and poorly grounded in principles of constitutional law, as were Lawrence, Obergafell, Griswold and Troxel

Juris Doctor | May 2, 2022 at 10:17 pm

Pocahontas and Sen, Tammy Baldwin are already announcing legislative efforts to nullify the leaked opinion.

Could the Court claim some kind of crime was committed and request the FBI to give lie detector tests to everyone who knew about it?

The leak is obviously designed to possibly force a decision change and wake Democrats from despair over the likely political consequences of the wreckage of lives being caused in this country by inflation, crime, illegals, etc and change the prospects for November. Wild and possibly violent demonstrations everywhere is the goal. 2020 was “Trump” and they want 2022 to “Roe v Wade”.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to jb4. | May 2, 2022 at 10:41 pm

    Requesting the FBI to act to find and arrest someone who committed a Federal crime to support Leftist orthodoxy is the height of futility. The White House would give orders to the FBI [which the WH itself would have received from the Left] as to what crimes to find against which people for the crime of disagreeing with the State.

    Subotai Bahadur

    henrybowman in reply to jb4. | May 2, 2022 at 11:36 pm

    Lie detectors aren’t reliable enough to use as actual evidence of guilt.

    Milhouse in reply to jb4. | May 3, 2022 at 1:48 am

    Of course a crime was committed. But “lie detectors” are witch-doctor stuff. That’s why they’re not admissible in court.

Besides the brouhaha over the person who leaked the document, has anyone bothered to question Politico. What editor, in his/her right mind, realizing what they had in their hand, would allow this story to be published, knowing full well, the integrity of the Court would be compromised, and the chain reaction it would cause? So it’s ratings, it’s first to be out there, and Court and precedence, integrity be damned. Bet you dollars to donuts, Kathryn Graham would never allow WaPo to publish something like this if the document came into their hands while she was Chief.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to PoliticalWoman. | May 2, 2022 at 10:46 pm

    Politico is after all is said and done an appendage of the Left. The only thing that counts to the Left is that whatever their political will of the moment is, will be enforced or imposed. They do not care about the integrity of the Court any more than they care about the integrity of elections or of the Constitution. This was destined to be published.

    Subotai Bahadur

    Milhouse in reply to PoliticalWoman. | May 3, 2022 at 1:55 am

    Why wouldn’t they publish it? It’s news. Like the Pentagon Papers, or the stories about CIA Air, and how they were using the SWIFT system to spy on al Qaeda, etc. The damage it does is irrelevant to them, because patriotism is against their “journalistic ethics”.

    “What editor…”

    It’s “politico”. Apparently you have no idea what they are. Subotai explains it for you.

MoeHowardwasright | May 2, 2022 at 10:26 pm

This was leaked (if it’s true) by someone trying to affect the outcome. For the Supreme’s that’s a big no no. There have been many big decisions affecting this country with never a leak like this before today. My opinion, this was done by a clerk working for one of the liberal justices. The draft is circulated and then refined. The dissenters can then write their dissents using the draft as a starting point to refute and cite law. It may never make the press, but you can be sure that whomever it was will no longer be employed. Even liberals realize that this going unpunished will result in utter chaos for the court.

    The Gentle Grizzly in reply to MoeHowardwasright. | May 2, 2022 at 10:40 pm

    Maybe the real “far right” will achieve their dream. That is, abolishment of the Supreme Court. It is now also compromised, I don’t see how it can go on in its present form.

      One of you more ridiculous comments.

        amwick in reply to txvet2. | May 3, 2022 at 7:15 am

        Not really,,, I have heard the talking heads say the same thing. I don’t like it… but.. it’s a thing now.

      TheOldZombie in reply to The Gentle Grizzly. | May 3, 2022 at 12:13 am

      Can you define what is the real “far right” for us? I’ve never seen anyone on the right from the RINO’s to the farthest of the far right ever be in support of getting rid of SCOTUS.

        The center is conservative (i.e. governmental temperance or moderation). The right is libertarian. The far-right of the governing spectrum (i.e. from least to most ordained) is anarchist. The left-right nexus is leftist.

        Barry in reply to TheOldZombie. | May 3, 2022 at 12:15 pm

        “Can you define what is the real “far right” for us?”

        For the marxist left, it’s anyone a billionth of an inch to the right of them.

      Anarchists. The left-right nexus of the governing spectrum is leftist.

      The Constitution was compromised when first they ruled on emanations from penumbras and established the nominally “secular” Pro-Choice “ethical” religion, including planned parent/hood (i.e. rites held for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes), diversity [dogma] (e.g. racism, sexism), redistributive change, and other wicked solutions.

    Lucifer Morningstar in reply to MoeHowardwasright. | May 3, 2022 at 12:39 am

    Even liberals realize that this going unpunished will result in utter chaos for the court.

    But remember. These are also the liberals that were threatening to expand the court to an indefinite number of Justices (10? 20? 30? more than that?) in order to impose their leftist ideological agenda on the court. So I highly doubt that those same liberals will care if this goes unpunished and the court descends into chaos.

      I highly doubt that those same liberals will care if this goes unpunished and the court descends into chaos

      Indeed, those same liberals would use that chaos as the pretext necessary to demand the court be expanded.

Steven Brizel | May 2, 2022 at 10:39 pm

Which clerk from which chambers decided to play Daniel Ellsberg ? He or she should be disbarred and prosecuted

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to Steven Brizel. | May 2, 2022 at 10:50 pm

    He or they should be. But you know, and I know that he, she, it, and/or they in whatever combination expect to be greatly rewarded if the Left should triumph. Mind you, he, she, it, and/or they are wrong because once things are done it is safest for those in power if he, she, it, and/or they are silenced forever.

    Subotai Bahadur

Juris Doctor | May 2, 2022 at 10:56 pm

Chief Justice Roberts allegedly discussing his vote with fake news CNN. Again, completely unprecedented.

Given the unique circumstances of leaking a draft opinion and the likely motivation behind it; bring public and political pressure to bear in order to reverse or dilute the opinion. Then assuming there are five votes the best course of action is to immediately release the opinion.

Rip off the bandaid all at once and endure 72-96 hours of progressive anger and frustration instead of allowing the leak to have any bearing on the CTs action. Then figure out who did it and hold them accountable. Immediate and permanent disbarment, no go for every security clearance or employment in any job public or private that involves any level trust. Plus as much prison time as possible.

Either make an example so severe and borderline cruel that no one thinks about being a copycat or get ready for the new norm that is being endorsed by failing to be harsh. Lots of law clerks across our judiciary are watching and maybe some Judges/Justices as well….

    rabid wombat in reply to CommoChief. | May 2, 2022 at 11:19 pm

    From Instapundit….

    “ More thoughts from Josh Blackman. “The Court should issue the Dobbs opinion as soon as possible. Do it tomorrow. Don’t wait till Thursday, or next Monday, or the end of June. The longer this process drags on, the worse the Court will be . . . if any members of the majority changed their vote in response to the leak, that change will be seen as a direct response to this leak.””

    alaskabob in reply to CommoChief. | May 3, 2022 at 12:12 am

    Whoever will be enshrined in the Hall of Progressive Heroes.

    TheOldZombie in reply to CommoChief. | May 3, 2022 at 12:17 am

    While I agree there should be severe consequences are there any laws that have been actually broken? It’s not a classified document. Leaking is a terrible thing but I can’t see this person facing any real consequences for it other than losing their job.

    They will probably go out and get another job immediately and be celebrated as a hero by a majority of the left.

      Milhouse in reply to TheOldZombie. | May 3, 2022 at 2:13 am

      are there any laws that have been actually broken?

      Theft of government property?

      They will probably go out and get another job immediately

      If they’re disbarred they will still get a job, but it won’t be one they’ll be all that happy with.

        TheOldZombie in reply to Milhouse. | May 3, 2022 at 5:05 am

        Where’s the theft? They printed off a copy and leaked it. The original is no doubt still in the building.

        Leaking government documents is also a well known thing that happens. SCOTUS isn’t exempt. In fact the original Roe decision was leaked to Time Magazine.

        What makes this different that this is the first known case of a draft opinion being leaked.

        Disbarred for leaking a government document? On what grounds? What about every other leaker in the government?

        I’m just not seeing a prosecution or a disbarment.

      CommoChief in reply to TheOldZombie. | May 3, 2022 at 10:48 am

      I have to believe that there are more formal and legal safeguards against unauthorized disclosure (leaking) of the internal work product of SCOTUS than a mere quaint tradition against doing so.

      At a minimum it is an unacceptable breach of trust and discretion which is what an advocate and a Jurist to include their staff members owe their clients, colleagues, petitioners, respondents and the legal system itself.

      I would be surprised if there was not a standing order at SCOTUS regarding unauthorized release of information.

      AnAdultInDiapers in reply to TheOldZombie. | May 3, 2022 at 3:12 pm

      I can’t see how this isn’t contempt of court, however that law’s worded in the US.

LukeHandCool | May 2, 2022 at 10:59 pm

Get ready to Ruuuuuuuuumble !!!

The only solution is to pack the Supreme Court in order to plug the leak.

How can a ban on the right of a women to have an abortion exist when nobody knows what a women is?

So, to distract from plummeting poll numbers, inflation, and impending global war….the Democrats and progressives divert attention to abortion. How stupid do they think we are?

    As I noted before, the 2020 election was about “Trump”. They want this one to be about “Roe v Wade”. Dems want this issue to be up there near the top in polls and not the disaster they now have. My bet is that what is coming will indeed narrow the spread: and especially if SCOTUS does not announce the decision formally ASAP.

    The aim to energize their dispirited left-wing voters to go and vote in November. Another tactic that might very well backfire. Again.

TheOldZombie | May 3, 2022 at 12:21 am

I saw a Twitter comment that this was leaked today because of 2000 Mules.

Don’t know if I believe it but it does seem to be a mighty big coincidence.

This just turned the mid-terms into all out war. This issue will dominate everything all the way to the election.

I’ve seen the left already talk about court packing and eliminating the filibuster in order to pass nationwide abortion rights. Manchin is going to be filling the pressure tomorrow. LOL

Colonel Travis | May 3, 2022 at 12:37 am

Why is the left so mad about Roe being overturned? They obliterated the my body my choice argument with the introduction of vaccines, masks, lockdowns, etc.

Oh, that’s right. They are a bunch of emotional twits who can’t argue their way out of a 4th grade paper bag lunch. Silly me.

    aramissebastian in reply to Colonel Travis. | May 3, 2022 at 9:45 am

    So, let me try . . .

    1. None of the Covid measures to which you allude were gender specific, for starters. Not just a female thing, in other words, like pregnancy.

    2. In the case of Covid, there was a demonstrable public health emergency, triggering the state’s inherent police powers. The power of the state to curtail personal liberties as necessary during epidemics has been recognized for hundreds of years. Where exactly to draw the line has been a debate for as long.

    You recall ‘Typhoid Mary’, the domestic who refused to quit her occupation and in connection with her food preparation duties allegedly infected many unsuspecting families? Well, they actually locked her up . . .

    3. The right to an abortion as set forth in Roe is not unconditional; it expressly recognizes a state interest in the latter stages of the pregnancy.

      Colonel Travis in reply to aramissebastian. | May 3, 2022 at 7:37 pm

      I’d ask you to try harder but I see we’ve reached peak aramissebastian.

      1.) Sex does not = “body” and the argument was never simply about imaginary, abortion rights. “My body, my choice” was about autonomy. Also, if “my body my choice” only applies to females, then the argument is useless. Only females have bodies?

      2.) Lockdowns, masks and vaccines did not do what we were told they would do. Lockdowns haven’t been used for hundreds of years. Lockdowns started with China and were copied by the West for the first time ever. You have typed absolute BS and are ignorant of actual history. Also, when all other restrictions in the US were dropped, only public transportation remained, which the Biden DOJ is fighting, which has nothing to do with science and everything to do with tyranny.

      3.) There is no right to an abortion, it was pulled out of the asses of a few justices. It is one of the worst SCOTUS opinions in history.

      3a.) What you typed doesn’t negate my argument. Let’s pretend abortions are a right in the Constitution. We must then go back to my body, my choice, which is a concept you clearly do not understand.

Why is everyone so sure this isn’t an elaborate hoax? Someone (or group) could well believe it would be in the interest of those trying to pressure the justices, to let loose a violent public reaction. It might also be seen to be in the interest of the other side to demonstrate how dangerous such pressure tactics might be. Such deception, if deception it was, could come from a variety of sources. The thing is that it is difficult to predict what would be the outcome in either case, and the leaker (if leaker there be) is not only a criminal, but also a fool to believe that they would be at all likely to have furthered their own cause. Unless the sole intention was to damage the reputation of the Court and cripple it, which could well succeed.

I can envision a couple of scenarios that might not have been foreseen. One is that everyone on the Court denies the authenticity of the presumed draft, and a potential hoaxer is quickly found—whether real or not. Prosecution of the individual is threatened. The Politico writer refuses to disclose the source, or claims that it was delivered anonymously. False cards are spread lavishly around Washington by those ‘close to’ the justices, and no one knows if the leak is real or false. Perhaps because of the brouhaha and ensuing investigation, issue of the opinion is delayed to the fall term.

Two, the Court decides, that because of the disruption of its operating procedures, the case must be re-heard, and a decision is postponed until after the fall elections. Perhaps one of the parties to the suit—or a major amicus filer—is accused of having incited the leak. Regardless, the interim ruling is that the case has become hopelessly compromised, and must be re-heard.

    Someone should go to prison over this.

    Let’s start with Hillary Clinton, just for the hell of it.

    TheOldZombie in reply to HarvardPhD. | May 3, 2022 at 1:36 am

    It’s been mentioned that the way it’s written it’s clearly a real ruling. It’s 96 pages.

    That’s one hell of a hoax if it’s not a real draft.

    Also the court would have immediately come out and said it was a hoax. The current statement from the court spokesperson is, “no comment at this time”

    Barry in reply to HarvardPhD. | May 3, 2022 at 12:22 pm

    It’s not a hoax, clearly.

Roe, Roe, Roe your baby down the river Styx… perhaps not.

There is no mystery in sex and conception, a woman, and man, have four choices, and self-defense through reconciliation.

Here’s to abortion of planned parent/hood, slavery, diversity, redistributive change, and other wicked solutions.

HarvardPhD | May 3, 2022 at 1:08 am

By the way, this leaked draft—if authentic—does not reveal what the Court has voted to do, but only what it might have decided in February, if that had been its final decision. I could easily imagine this incident causing the Court’s opinion to fragment, so that no clear precedent is set, merely to protect the Court. Alternatively, if the liberals are as worried about the status of the Court as they are about Roe and Casey, the result could be a brief per curiam opinion that settles nothing, and leaves no one justice in the gunsights. It is somewhat hard to imagine—although not impossible—that all or most of the justices will be less concerned about expressing their opinion on the instant case, than about discouraging the sort of intimidation this leak is likely to occasion.

Wild card: never rule out the possibility that Pres. Biden will say or do something to f— this up.

    Olinser in reply to HarvardPhD. | May 3, 2022 at 2:18 am

    Giving in and ‘protecting the Court’ by issuing a wishy-washy opinion is going to do the exact opposite. It will show the insane far left that leaking opinions and publicly throwing a fit will make the Court back down.

    Whatever ruling they’ve decided, they need to issue it IMMEDIATELY.

      jb4 in reply to Olinser. | May 3, 2022 at 8:54 am

      Agree – show that leaking does not pay, but speeds things up and gives nearly another 2 months to the election for people to refocus on inflation, crime, the border, etc.

If the Roe v. Wade document is fake we need the Democrats go absolutely insane for the country to see before before learning it’s fake.

They underestimate abortions popularity.

Either way done to try and change what is or what could be.
If the perpetrator isn’t handled immediately and firmly it will happen again.

This brings up a question. Should Breyer declare that he has changed his mind and doesn’t plan to retire, does that negate the Senate approval of KBJ appointment?

    amwick in reply to Pasadena Phil. | May 3, 2022 at 7:17 am

    I wondered about that myself… talk about a sht storm..Anything can happen in this clown world.

    Milhouse in reply to Pasadena Phil. | May 3, 2022 at 10:14 am

    It wouldn’t negate the senate’s consent, but it would negate her subsequent appointment. (BIden has already appointed her, in anticipation of the vacancy, but it can’t take effect until there is a vacancy. If it never materializes then the appointment is of no effect.)

    And of course the senate can withdraw its consent at any time. If she’s not safely on the court by next January, I would expect the incoming senate to do so.

Just think how insane this is. Abortionists would destroy the country for the right to kill innocents by the millions. Talk about “worse than Hitler”. His government only killed about 10 million. We surpassed 60 million. About as many illegal immigrants that have been allowed in. This is NOT civilization. It’s societal cancer. Civilization is committing suicide.

scooterjay | May 3, 2022 at 7:04 am

There is far more to this than what is seen. I wonder what is the purpose of harvesting fetuses? Are they appeasing Baal with Human sacrifice?
Time to toss Holy water on Barabbas.

So what’s a pro-choice, fiscally-conservative Libertarian to do?

Encourage states on the border of [women’s body’s rights vs. embryo rights] to adopt a Hillary Clinton middle ground (“Abortion should be safe, available and rare”). Make PlanB widely available and allow the abortion of viable fetus’s ONLY if the mother’s life is at risk (Jewish law, btw).
Certainly NOT vote for Kamala Harris or Joe Biden in 2024.

    Milhouse in reply to Yuckster. | May 3, 2022 at 10:24 am

    Jewish law does not draw a line at “viability”. It draws the line at 40 days. Before 40 days the embryo is not a person, so aborting it is a kind of contraception. Jewish law does not permit contraception as a general rule, but is fairly liberal in making exceptions for special cases.

    But after 40 days the former embryo, now a foetus, is regarded as a person, so killing it can only be justified in the same circumstances that would justify killing an already-born person, i.e. self defense or defense of others. In other words, to prevent it from killing the mother.

      Steven Brizel in reply to Milhouse. | May 3, 2022 at 2:18 pm

      Jewish law “does not permit contraception as a general rule, but is fairly liberal in making exceptions for special cases.” as you mentioned but certainly would not be supportive of the agenda of reproductive rights as currently advocated for by the left.

    CommoChief in reply to Yuckster. | May 3, 2022 at 11:37 am

    Embrace the principle of Federalism. With the CT and Fed govt out of the way (always and everywhere a clear good from a libertarian perspective because we oppose centralized govt power) the States can once again freely function as the laboratories of democracy.

    Each State will be able to craft laws and regulations based upon the culture and wishes of the Citizens and voters of those States. Massachusetts will be free to be Massachusetts and Mississippi will be free to be Mississippi. What’s not to like from a libertarian perspective?

    Barry in reply to Yuckster. | May 3, 2022 at 12:24 pm

    So what’s a pro-choice baby killing, fiscally-conservative Libertarian to do?

    FIFY, killer.

Finicky Fat Guy | May 3, 2022 at 8:23 am

Assuming for a moment that this is legit and it was leaked by a clerk, would that clerk be subject to sanctions or disbarment by the Bar? I understand that there are severe sanctions for violating attorney-client privilege. Would divulging this draft be considered something similar?

No information is sacrosanct anymore. It can be released (or concocted) as interested parties in government (ours or somebody else’s) or the communications industry see fit. These entities hold the rule of law in contempt and are confident that no negative repercussions will come their way from our feeble system.

Steven Brizel | May 3, 2022 at 8:52 am

Whichever clerk who engaged in civil disobedience ala Daniel Ellsberg and leaked what clearly looks like a first draft deserved to be arrested and disbarred. The first rule that a law clerk or a lawyer learns is that what happens or is said in chambers or in your office stays there,. This leak is a natural consequence of a generation that renames public institutions and schools,. writes revisionist history destroys statues, calls riots protests and where young lawyers throw Molotov cocktails at police cars and that is intolerant of dissenting views.

Gerald Hawxhurst | May 3, 2022 at 9:21 am

Would this have happened if the Court and staff had more respect for CJ Roberts? Or at least feared him.

    aramissebastian in reply to Gerald Hawxhurst. | May 3, 2022 at 9:59 am

    As Chief Justice, Roberts only has limited actual powers.

    If you look at the really effective CJ’s, like Earl Warren, it was their soft powers of persuasion which were key . . .

    It is said that institutionalism is as important to Roberts as his conservatism, which is appropriate, because, in the end, they are the same thing, at least in the Burkean sense.

    That’s not the case with Alito and Thomas, who are more radical than conservative, in my opinion.

regardless of the case/opinions/etc, this is bad.
really bad.

Will blue-check Liewatha be held accountable for inciting a riot?
Not betting wampum on it.

You have to admire the left. These people have no scruples whatsoever and don’t care who knows it. It’s pointless to speculate who leaked what, in fact, that is precisely what the leaker wanted. The left has declared war on the nation’s institutions and whereas the Supreme Court was formerly more or less “off limits” (exception: Chuck Schumer “reap the whirlwind” crap) now, that’s all ancient history. The gloves are off and this is a real street fight.

If they ferret out this asshole and convict him, he needs to be stripped of citizenship and expelled from the country. The justice for whom he works, no matter who it is, should resign immediately … in shame.

The folks on TV say that this will galvanize the left for the November. No shit. The right needs to counter with our own renewed vigor to throw these lyin’ leftist scumbags out.

Get off your ass and get out there and work for red candidates. Donate to their campaigns. What? You thought it was gonna be easy?

This just in: it ain’t.

The Dumb-o-crats are goose-stepping, bullying, narcissistic, vindictive, lawless, infantile and destructive totalitarians. The rule of law means nothing to them. Comity means nothing to them. All that they care about is achieving and maintaining power.

The Dumb-o-crats’ histrionics, agitation, intimidation and violence in support of abortion demonstrate this. We are not dealing with people who can be reasoned with.

Let’s all keep in mind that this ruling wouldn’t ban abortions. All it would do is return the debate to the states where voters themselves can weigh in.

This would greatly complicate the game for the well-funded left-wing establishment. Rather than flooding the Supreme Court with cases that ignore the main problem with Roe v. Wade (which even RBG had issues with), now they are being forced to make their arguments to the people. That is how our constitution republic is designed to operate. SCOTUS is not a short cut around the system.

    guyjones in reply to Pasadena Phil. | May 3, 2022 at 11:46 am

    Precisely. And, that Dumb-o-crats are so implacably vengeful and histrionic regarding the returning of the abortion issue to where it always should have resided — in state legislatures, to be subject to local citizens’ views — and, the rejection of an awful SCOTUS decision born of the shoddiest jurisprudence and that was grounded exclusively in judicial fiat, arrogance and narcissism — certainly not in the U.S. Constitution — speaks to their manifest lawlessness, spite and totalitarian ethos.

    aramissebastian in reply to Pasadena Phil. | May 4, 2022 at 8:58 pm

    But here’s my question . . .

    Okay. Roe is overruled; and abortion, as an issue, is decided on a state-by-state issue.

    So, you know that some states will permit abortions.

    If you really think abortion is systematized murder, then you’re ethically obligated to do something about it, wherever it occurs, I would think.

    So, what’s your plan as regards ‘blue states” that permit abortions?

Steven Brizel | May 3, 2022 at 11:50 am

See here and
note the following relevant portion:

“In fact, like other employees of the Court such as the
Judicial Fellows, who work in the office of the Counselor to the Chief Justice,1 new
clerks must sign a confidentiality agreement before they can begin their orientation
1. In 1972, Congress authorized the Chief Justice of the United States to appoint an administrative
assistant. In 2008, Congress changed the title of the position from administrative assistant to Counselor to
the Chief Justice.
Influence of Supreme Court Clerks 3

See also
“The tradition of secrecy at the court runs deep. Law clerks each year sign confidentiality pledges and receive a stern lecture about secrecy from the chief justice. Some justices go further; Justice Antonin Scalia would solemnly tell his clerks that he would ruin their careers if they revealed the inner workings of his chambers.”

Roe v. Wade was passed by a highly LIEberal Supreme Court headed by CJ Earl Warren in defiance of the Constitution’s enumeration of powers given to the states and the Federal; government. It was illegal then and it’s illegal now.

IMO it was either a clerk or staff member of either Kagan or Sotomayor who “leaked” this document in order to mobilize a despondent Left in time for the November, 2022 elections. Screaming hordes of Femnazis, Planned Parenthood goons and pussyhatted Socialists makes for great TV on CNN and PMSDNC.

Maybe getting the issue of abortion front and center now is a good thing. Maybe more people can be convinced that killing unborn children (of both sexes) is not protecting women’s rights.

Moon Battery | May 3, 2022 at 4:07 pm

My question is how was it leaked and by who…… Seems that might be a federal crime.

Moon Battery | May 3, 2022 at 4:09 pm

“Right now: Barricades are up around the Supreme Court building, just minutes after reports from Politico were leaked indicating SCOTUS has voted to overturn Roe v. Wade.”

So, they are preparing for the left to engage in a violent insurrection?

Here is a petition to the Supreme Court to issue the ruling as soon as possible:

Antifundamentalist | May 4, 2022 at 12:55 pm

How about remanding the abortion decision to the individual and leave the federal and state governments out of it entirely. Then let the states regulate the medical facilities that perfom them. Any “fair” decision should make both sides unhappy.