Hammer: Justices Should Have Only 1 Choice in the Wake of SCOTUS Betrayal


The scandalous leak of a full draft of Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in this term’s marquee Supreme Court case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, is an event without precedent in the court’s history.

If Alito’s coalition holds, the leaked majority opinion, a February-dated first draft whose authenticity has been confirmed by Chief Justice John Roberts, would represent the culmination of a half-century of pro-life efforts to overturn 1973’s Roe v. Wade atrocity.

Roe, the court’s worst decision since 1857’s Dred Scott v. Sandford due to the cases’ similar fundamental lies about anthropology and human dignity, should have been overturned in 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

It wasn’t. On the contrary, pro-lifers were condescended to by a relativistic court plurality, which mused in Casey, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life.”

Now, at long last, after an unconscionable 63 million unborn children have been snuffed out in the womb, the court in Dobbs seems poised to do what it could not do in Casey: declare the moral and legal illiteracy of Roe’s central claim of a constitutional “right” to abortion.

Mandatory Evacuations Announced for Parts of US City, Residents Warned to Prepare for Overnight Shelter Stays

Poised, that is. It is too premature to celebrate; pro-lifers have been burned far too many times before. Furthermore, votes can still flip even at this late hour, as anyone with a long enough memory to recall the chief justice’s flip-flop in the 2012 Obamacare case, NFIB v. Sebelius, can attest.

And that leads us to the leaker, whose identity is surprisingly still unknown as of this writing.

While we cannot be certain, it is highly likely that the leak originated in the chambers of one of the court’s three lockstep-marching progressives: the retiring Justice Stephen Breyer, Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The most likely explanation is that a fanatical pro-abortion law clerk in a liberal chamber decided to seek progressive hero status and a shiny book deal, an MSNBC talking head gig and/or a gender studies professorial perch at a mid-tier university.

That rabid antifa thugs will be dispatched to the private residences of the case’s two swing justices, Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, is not a bug but a feature of this malicious scheme. Indeed, it appears some vile pro-abortion activists have already publicly posted some of the justices’ personal addresses.

Will the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade?

It is impossible to describe how grotesque this state of affairs is. We are a long, long way removed from Antonin Scalia going to the opera and sharing a laugh with his dear friend Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The leak appears to be part of an intimidation campaign. It is an intimidation campaign not merely to peel away Barrett and/or Kavanaugh into the hands of the ever mercurial chief justice, but also to cow moderate Sens. Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin into assenting to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s desire to nuke the filibuster and ram through a court-packing boondoggle and a statutory codification of Roe’s underlying abortion “right.”

This is thuggish behavior — precisely the sort of mischief Abraham Lincoln condemned in his 1838 Lyceum address, in which he famously said, “There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.” And it is thuggish behavior that deserves severe rebuke, general ostracization from polite society, extreme vocational punishment, public shaming and criminal prosecution to the extent feasible under law.

We will likely know the identity of the leaker soon. But until then, the most pressing question facing the court — not to mention the most pressing question facing unborn children nationwide — is whether Alito’s five-justice majority will hold strong amid this appalling attempt to scupper the institution’s independence and legitimacy.

The answer ought to be simple: At this point, the justices have no choice whatsoever but to plow full steam ahead — to do what needs to be done and overturn Roe and Casey.

Gen. Flynn Warning: Before Nov., Dems Can Stick Us with Unelected POTUS/VP - Technically Legal, Extremely Troubling

For a swing justice to defect now and rule in any manner short of cleanly overruling Roe and Casey would be to give the leaker and his/her street brawler allies a massive win. It would be a win from which the court would likely never recover for the remainder of its history.

If the American Founding-era idea of a “government of laws, not of men” means anything at all, it means that the judiciary — our most cloistered and “least dangerous” governmental branch — cannot be subject to mobocracy the likes of which Lincoln warned about in 1838.

To defect now would be to permanently incentivize opinion leaks in the future — and even the mild proliferation of these leaks would paralyze the court and prevent its normal day-to-day operations. One ought not negotiate with terrorists, and the swing justices in Dobbs ought not “negotiate” with the reprehensible leaker.

We are in uncharted waters at this point. All eyes remain on the chief justice to see if he can find a way — any way — to restore to the court a semblance of what he has long cherished most: its perceived institutional integrity. That could prove an uphill battle; the leak really is that devastating.

But there is one easy way for Roberts to do so: Join Alito’s courageous coalition and send the bloody Roe and Casey precedents to the ash heap of history in clarion 6-3 fashion.


The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.

Truth and Accuracy

Submit a Correction →

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

, ,
Josh Hammer is the opinion editor of Newsweek, a research fellow with the Edmund Burke Foundation, counsel and policy advisor for the Internet Accountability Project ad a contributing writer for American Compass.