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.

One Comment

  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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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