Leaking Legality - Roe Decision Will Be Overturned by Supreme Court. Why Leak?

What are the key aspects of this news, and the decision? Let's learn...

As talk radio, numerous websites, and chatterbox TV explode with the visceral news that someone within the SCOTUS walls leaked a draft version of the impending decision in the case “Dobbs et al v Jackson Women’s Health et al”, key salient points come to the fore.

First, the substance of the draft decision (a decision which sees Chief Justice Roberts side with the leftist minority, while Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett voted with Sam Alito, in the majority, not only overturns Roe and sends the issue of abortion legality back to the states (where the Founders placed questions about intra-state capital murder definition and punishment, and did not shield it behind a “penumbra” of privacy because, by definition, the killing of another human being who cannot give his or her consent to being exterminated means abortion is not a private action by the mother or abortionist) it also overturns a 1992 case called “Planned Parenthood v. Casey” that narrowed the leniency for abortion afforded under Roe, but still allowed states to permit abortions if the “health, life, or welfare” of the mother is deemed to take precedence.

As Justia notes, about “Casey”:

“Replacing the trimester formula in Roe with an emphasis on viability, the plurality found that a fetus could become viable earlier than when Roe was decided, and it held that a state could ban abortion once a fetus becomes viable unless the health of the mother was at risk. Its other notable revision of Roe was its replacement of strict scrutiny with an undue burden standard that was more lenient to the state. O'Connor built on her dissenting opinion from the Court's 1983 decision in Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health in holding that restrictions on abortion before the fetus was viable were constitutional unless they posed a substantial obstacle to the woman seeking an abortion.”

The SCOTUS majority in this new decision determined that the “Casey” case was, of course, based on Stare Decisis (the prior decision stands) going back to Roe, but, strikingly, and for the first time in a long time, they noted that Stare Decisis of an incorrect previous ruling is unjust:

“Stare Decisis, the doctrine on which Casey’s controlling opinion was based, does not compel unending adherence to Roe’s abuse of judicial authority.”

And on the new “Dobbs” argument, the majority dug all the way to Roe, and then went further.

On the first page of the draft, one reads this, purportedly written by Sam Alito:

“For the first 185 years after the adoption of the Constitution, each State was permitted to this issue in accordance with the views of its citizens.”

And he added:

“Even though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the court (in Roe) held that it confers a broad right to one. It did not claim that American law or the common law had ever recognized such a right, and its survey of history ranged from the constitutionally irrelevant (e.g., its discussion of abortion in antiquity), to the plainly incorrect (e.g., its assertion that abortion was probably never a crime under common law.”

And the big, history-changing, federalism-respecting, rights-kinda-respecting (if one can call anything associated with the state “respecting of rights”, which the state, itself, does not – as a matter of its existence), statement appears on page 5:

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overturned. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now rely.”

The Alito text goes on to note the specious nature of the disputants’ claim that those getting or conducting abortions are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s assurance of due process by law and that a prior restraint against abortion punishes before any due process is allowed.

“The right to abortion does not fall within this category. Until the latter part of the 20th Century, such a right was entirely unknown in American law. Indeed, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three-quarters of the States made abortion a crime at all stages of pregnancy. The abortion right is also critically different from any other right that this Court has held to fall within the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of ‘liberty.’ Roe’s defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions in matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called “fetal life” and what the law now before us describes as an ‘unborn human being.’”

Which is precisely right.

Though Alito does not explicitly state this, the fact is that rights are negative in nature and universalizable. They are inherent, God-given, and stand on the axiom that each individual human being has a right to live free from attack, threat, coercion, theft, or silencing by another person. What Alito is saying, in a roundabout way, is that there is no “right” to abortion because abortion is not an act effecting merely one human being.

Upon conception, the fetus is both a unique human, and it is being, on that great continuum from creation to demise that every human being follows. We all are on that arc, at different points along its path.

Thus, as OPPOSED TO GETTING A SO-CALLED ‘VACCINE’,” abortion is not about a sole person.

The Dobbs case pertains to a Missouri statute that, as the Alito decision notes:

“…generally prohibits an abortion after the fifteenth week of pregnancy.”

And, since capital murder crimes (i.e. the intentional, willful, taking of human life) committed within states are, according to the US Constitution, the purview of the states, the abortion issue is the purview of the states as well.

The Missouri statute stands.

Which, of course, will send collectivists into fits, because collectivists despise decentralization, federalism, constitutionalism, and any acknowledgment of life beginning at conception. They also mislabel an individual obtaining an abortion, i.e. the murder of another individual, as “individualism” – when it is not individualism in any way, because, to reiterate, more than one INDIVIDUAL is involved in the situation.

Stressing this is important… As far as the content of the decision is concerned, the matter of abortion, murder, and punishment will go back to the states, where the Constitution places such matters.

This means that, if state politicians are honest, they will have to look at whether they apply their statutes against murder in a way that is consistent with the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Indeed, that requires states which have statutes punishing murder to apply those statutes in a way that “equally protects” all people. Meaning that these politicians must come to decisions about life, and apply their “laws” uniformly, to protect fetuses just as they claim to protect people who are 25, or 40, or any age.

Don’t expect the vas majority of state politicians to engage in this necessary action.

Likewise, don’t expect them to question the very idea that the state, in its normative sense, protects anyone. The only way the polis exists to push its “we protect you,” canard is by forcing taxpayers to give up cash. It’s not a case of the polis protecting you and your rights. It’s a case of the polis breaching your rights in order to exist and make its claim of false “protection.”

It's “Give us your money, so we can protect you from people who will take your money or hurt you -- or we’ll hurt you, ourselves.”

On the final level, the most visible level of this SCOTUS document being leaked, one only can speculate as to why.

I can’t see it being done to energize protesters in order to change the elections in November, because the final opinion, which was due in a few weeks, would do the same thing.

It’s possible that the leaker wanted to influence the Justices to get them to change their stances prior to the final ruling, but this appears to be a miscalculation, since the Justices are going to dig in and hold their positions. In fact, Chief Justice Roberts has called for an FBI investigation of the leak.

My two-cents? I think this was done to distract people from three things:

One: the increasing revelations that the US is sending tons of cash and equipment  to Ukraine, connecting with the same bad elements like Azov with which US forces have dealt for years, and using Ukraine as a proxy, to prolong a conflict in a place that the US and NATO have used as a site for biolabs and as a way to block Russian energy exports.

Two: the Ministry of Truth and its umbrella, the vile DHS.

Three: food and energy shortages.

Many evidently are enflamed by this leak. But I am less sanguine, as in the second definition, “blood red,” about it. Yes, this breaches protocol, but in a political system where the operators break their protocols on an hourly basis — all to the detriment of our rights — perhaps this is just part of a larger system of abuse. Perhaps it’s more clear-headed to look at the fact that this DC cult has not only not operated according to its own rules since, essentially, the day the Constitution usurped the Articles of Confederation, but that the Constitution itself is imposed on us, and it is not a contract. The politicians break it all the time, and their bogus “social contract” is more than unrecognized in DC, the “contract” is not a real contract and doesn’t apply to American citizens.

I wonder what you think… Thank you for reading! Please visit the Liberty Conspiracy video channels on Rumble, Odysee, and Bitchute, see my work at MRCTV.org and the MRCTV channels on Youtube and Rumble, and follow me on Gab (@GardnerGoldsmith) and Twitter (@GardGoldsmith) Be Seeing You!