Speculation on leaked draft opinion re Roe

The purpose of the release may have been to:
elicit massive protests eliciting ‘adjustments’ in the opinion.
force wavers, Roberts, Barrett, Kavanaugh, to firm up so as not to appear to cave to public pressure.
push people to the polls and to activism.
throw the court into an even lower trust level.

reduce the credibility of the court in light of Alito’s disparaging and contemptuous tone toward justices finding for Roe.


The reaction if Roe is overturned might be:

calexit and the like, pushing some states to realize that despite larger populations, to many states with small populations will continue to control the outcome of court decisions, not the will of the majority, in some particular issues, a vast majority, of the people. (Many of the minority opinion believe it is their duty to stand against the majority because they represent not the people’s will but god’s will. Ref: Sodom and Gomorrah)

the rise of support networks to get women safe abortions either here or abroad (since there is talk of Congress passing a bill outlawing abortion nationwide)

a rise in emergency services in light of the figures Barbara McQuade cited: pre-Roe 4000 botched abortion cases showing up in Chicago ERs every week.

cities become islands e.g. Atlanta in Georgia, Tucson in Arizona, Austin in Texas, and so on.

the credibility of SCOTUS is destroyed as its totally political nature is revealed.

party lines will harden to an 1861 level and the election of a president, with or without voter fraud and voter suppression, firmly committed to one or the other position, sets off some form of national partition. At least parties will lose all semblance of being anything but ideological fronts rather than pursuing reasonable policies directed to all citizens.

precedent in the judiciary becomes “moot.”

And it should be pointed out that the word ‘unprecedented’ names exactly what Trump voters were aiming for, actions in economics, immigration, finance, business, the military, foreign affairs, health care, education and on and on that are unprecedented. They got it.


  1. Sandra Verbeke says:

    THIS is a VITAL Law – Birth Right of an Individual
    That should ONLY be allowed to pass or NOT pass
    by putting it to Entire Population VOTE . **

    But even
    The U.S. Constitution
    Article 6 (says it should NOT be up to 9 persons)

    he First Amendment
    The first amendment to the US Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The two parts, known as the “establishment clause” and the “free exercise clause” respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court’s interpretations of the “separation of church and state” doctrine.[40] Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America’s doctrine for church-state separation

    U.S. Treaty No. 122 (“The Treaty of Tripoli”), which was negotiated under President Washington and signed by President John Adams in 1797, plainly states “…[a]s the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] … .”
    (or any Multiple protesant religions Or any varied Spiritual Practices.)

    The American SEPARATION of church and state rests upon Respect for the church;
    (SV) > SO Why do Flawed 5 People get to reinstate Law from THEIR Church that Controls 300 MILLION People of this nation. ? ? ? ?

    IT SAYS:
    The constitution did not create a nation, nor its religion and institutions. It found them already existing and was framed for the purpose of Protecting The People, Individually * a rule of the people, by the people, and for the people.[42]
    NOT 5 peoples church Or politics

    It says: our government is not founded on any religion.
    SV) but the Abuse of people in government, Forces their opin on 300 Million.

    It says: Our Constitution separates government from religion requiring official neutrality toward religion, which means government canNot prefer any faith or religion over non-religion.
    SV) But that does NOT hold true… these 5 malpractice, Oath Breakers, use their, ONLY their Religous preference to make Contrary Laws for 300 Million americans

    The separation requirement frees ways of worship ** from government interference in their private religious practice.

    and here I’ve been thinking for 70+ years That the Constitution
    the the BILL Of RIGHTS – Protected Individual RIGHTS ..

    the NOT supreme – Court should have NEVER, ever been given this type Power… Giving 9 people,,,, OR Only 18 people,,,,, or … SHOULD NEVER have BEEN put into Being…… it’s Ludicrous to think Any Just 9 persons COULD make the Sane and Fair Opinion on making Law for the Masses ……
    The Just Two from each State IS BAD enough….. Those 200 persons are NOT enough to make laws for 300 Million.

  2. 伟思礼 says:

    Article six of the constitution doesn’t say anything about the number nine.  It says that the constitution and laws COMPATIBLE WITH IT are supreme. The Supreme Court’s job is to strike down laws not compatible with the Constitution.  Whether they are doing that and only that is debatable.

    One thing that I didn’t notice before that I find unpleasant is that article six allows a treaty to override the Constitution!

    1. Pat Barrett says:

      I am going to make this an omnibus response to your posts and an e-mail:
      do I need help with this surreptitious way of checking out an offer? I need help putting my socks on. I’ll pass on this but thanks.
      re treaties. Yes, that is one point many conservatives (the real ones) make and I understand it. There’s more to it I am sure but I’ve never looked at how we Americans are protected except by the President making sure there is nothing in the treaty that would compromise this country. Thus also objections to international laws and courts, but it’s hard to get away from maritime law, etc.
      Which presidential reliability brings us to Trump.
      I’ve never read a comment of yours I so disagree with, mainly just on a factual basis. It’s like we are looking at different sets of hearing. Here goes: I heard nothing that makes Mark Meadows look like anything but an accomplice to the sacking of the Capitol; did you hear Cassidy Hutchison testify as to what Meadows replied to Cipallone? Jesus. Meadows needs to be on the lamp post next to Trump. What other country lets coup plotters off the gallows? Meeting an attempted coup with a shrug doesn’t give you a pass.
      Anyway, re the notion that the Hearings are one sided: McCarthy rejected the chance to put Jim Jordan, Josh Hawley, and other traitors on the committee. His problem was that he was outclassed and fucked by Nancy Pelosi. Remember, he was the one in the dog house for a while (Republicans have short memories) when he said on national TV that the GOP had engineered the Benghazi hearings to damage Clinton, not to find out anything.
      When Kinzinger and Cheney went on the committee, that made it non-partisan, unless you are going to tell me that Cheney is a closet liberal.
      As Cheney and Thompson and everyone else but you have said, the people who came forward voluntarily to testify are bona fide Trump supporters, some of whom have unaccountably said they will vote for Trump in 2024 while condemning him as a law-breaker. The supoened ones are clearly hedging what they say but what they have said is totally damning unless you fudge on what the Constiitution and swearing to uphold it means.
      And therein lies the problem: Trump supporters and their allies remind me of my government class students: most of them were either impatient with pesky details like what Article Six says or completely indifferent. I have blogged before of what I am proud of: that maybe one or two of my former students remember me telling them that this democracy is held together by our mutual citizen action. Support it or lose it.This inflation crap drives me nuts but it is normal: I don’t mind losing the world’s oldest democracy but just lower the damn gas prices. No wonder Hitler was voted in: making the trains on time was more important than the new nation of Germany.
      I read a good part, the New Deal part, of a book on FDR, Traitor to his Class. His threat to pack the court never bore fruit but it is possible, for sure. We are seeing, much sooner than I thought, the ramifications of overturning Roe, thanks to zealots and hacks in state legislatures who are purposefully enacting laws far more draconian that we trusting liberals ever thought they would do. It might be better to just let the court go on; maybe Clarence Thomas will find against his own marriage – could that have been his bplan all along? No alimony? “Hey, Baby, it’s SCOTUS. What can I do?”
      BTW, there are passages and quotes in that book that you could print out and show people who would think they were current. Nothng new under the sun.
      And Bannon was just now found guilty on two counts. Let’s bet on how many years of appeals before he gets fitted for his orange uniform.
      Thanks for the comments.

      1. 伟思礼 says:

        Can’t believe most of what we hear/read these days, but I heard that Trump was more popular than the next Republican hopeful. I might re-register Republican to vote against him in the primary. I wonder whether any states prohibit someone in jail from being on the ballot.

  3. Pat Barrett says:

    My question is: when could you believe most of what you heard?
    The Dems are being firmly reprimanded for funding shitty GOP candidates in primaries in hopes of making them easier to beat in the general. Bad move……. they might win and go on to win in the general. Your plan is OK if you are certain your GOP vote won’t get the not-Trump person a victory that will allow them to go on to beat the Dem.
    If I am not mistaken, you vote less for party than for individual candidate. I’ve never voted even for a ‘good’ Republican because a Republican in office strengthens the GOP and if you despise their platform – which I always have – you raise the likelihood that platform will be put into operation. It depends on two factors: do you believe that the platform is no good for America and do you believe platforms matter.

  4. 伟思礼 says:

    Fifty years ago, politicians were a little less dishonest and journalists were a lot less dishonest.  People were just as gullible, but the lack of internet slowed down the spread of nonsense and lies. I didn’t have to vote for a Democrat to vote against Trump. I voted third-party, knowing that the winner-take-all rule would effectively say I voted Democrat.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *