The leaked Supreme Court draft opinion does nothing to outlaw the murder of infants. The Court abdicates its responsibility to answer the question of whether an unborn infant has the right to live: the fundamental question of our time. The Court’s decision to shield themselves behind jurisdictional excuses is reminiscent of the Dred Scott court.
The Dred Scott decision set the wheels in motion for a severely divided country which a few decades later erupted in a Civil War. Given the increased speed at which the world moves today, the consequences of such a feckless decision may be irreversible. The country cannot stand when states are allowed to legislate such diametrically opposite positions.
Either abortion is the killing of infants or it is not. Pro-lifers across the country rejoiced when news of a leaked Supreme Court opinion revealed that the justices might overturn Roe v. Wade in the next few months. But of course, not everything is as it seems.
MORE NEWS: Excuses vs Expectation – What Do You Have❓
The opinion as it stands may actually go against Conservative values deeply embedded in fundamental rights reserved by the people. The opinion ultimately determines there is no Constitutional right to an abortion, and reverts the power to restrict or allow abortions to State legislatures.
Abortion advocates argue that the Supreme Court draft is against the interest of the majority and that it is undemocratic for the justices to overturn Roe v. Wade, which is exactly how Roe v. Wade was established in the first place. Pro-lifers find themselves more concerned that the opinion was leaked undermining the process of the Court and inciting public protest before the Supreme Court could finish drafting and publishing their decision. Both sides of pendulum however seem to miss glaring issues with the leaked draft.
The Supreme Court ruled that there was no explicit or implicit constitutional right to an abortion, rather than affirmatively establishing a right to life for the unborn. Because the Supreme Court determined there is no constitutional right, the entire power to legislate on abortion belongs to the states. Under such a ruling, states like California or New York could allow abortion all the way to term, while states like Florida and Texas could ban abortion all together.
Not only, does this infuriate both sides of the pro-life debate, but it also gives far too much power to state legislatures and negates the fundamental power of the Supreme Court to be a check and balance on legislators that infringe on the rights of individuals. For the opinion to successfully protect life of unborn babies and prevent infringement of other fundamental rights, the Supreme Court could have recognized a right to life for the unborn.
However, the Supreme Court did not recognize a right to life for the unborn in the unpublished draft, and actually refused to exercise its power to protect the rights of individuals and instead only protects the powers of legislators.
The Supreme Court in ruling that there was no constitutional right to an abortion inadvertently limited other rights that are reserved by the people through the Ninth Amendment. The United States protects the rights of its people by recognizing that even though certain rights are not enumerated in the US Constitution, the people still reserve their fundamental rights.
But the Supreme Court draft essentially crushes that very notion and limits the peoples’ rights only to that which is explicitly written in the Constitution. It further argues that to determine whether a right is established in the Constitution is whether the right is “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition,” and whether the right is “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”
The draft opinion written by Alito states, “That is why the Court has long been ‘reluctant’ to recognize rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution.”
MORE NEWS: Excuses vs Expectation – What Do You Have❓
Imagine a time before the 13th Amendment. Without a recognized constitutional right, and applying the reasoning in the leaked draft, Americans could not, and would not have any relief through the Supreme Court as showcased through the Dred Scott case. The court would argue, especially given the reasoning in the draft opinion, that the Constitution did not include protections for people of African descent, there was no right to freedom for slaves because there was no expressed constitutional right, and slavery was deeply rooted in history and tradition.
Imagine a time before the 19th Amendment. Women had no right to vote, and traditionally were treated as chattel for their husbands. The Supreme Court, with the reasoning laid out in the leaked draft, would never rule on women’s right to vote since there was no expressed constitutional
right and oppression of women’s vote was rooted in tradition and history.
The Supreme Court is yet again, “kicking the can down the road,” refusing to rule on the merits of right to life and is reverting all power back to the states. This is dangerous. Sometimes the sentiment of the majority, through elected officials is wrong and the Supreme Court must step in to protect constitutional rights. Sometimes elected officials are corrupted and do not protect the rights of the people and the Supreme Court must interfere to protect American individuals.
Time and time again, the Supreme Court has abdicated its purpose to protect the people through interpreting the constitution and galvanized corrupt powers in politics. The justices have hidden behind procedural law to avoid deciding on the merits. The culture of the Supreme Court is starkly against its purpose in the checks and balance system.
The presiding majority Justices in Roe v. Wade used their checks and balance power to invent a right to an abortion, but now Conservative Justices like Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch refuse to establish a constitutional protection to the most explicit fundamental right in the Constitution, the Right to Life.
Instead, they only remove the right to an abortion and in so doing, they set precedent to limit other reserved rights of the people. Pro-lifers are typically Conservative, and value the rights of the people instead of over intrusive governments on both the Federal and State level. This leaked draft opinion, shows that the Supreme Court puts almost entire power in the hands of State governments instead of the people.
After 2020, Americans witnessed what can happen when State and Local Governments abuse their power, through mask mandates and shut downs, this Supreme Court opinion would prevent individuals from enforcing their rights to health freedom through the US Constitution. The Court would be “’reluctant’ to recognize rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution” like privacy or health freedom and defer the over intrusive, unconstitutional limits to the States and Localities.
Worse than that, this ruling to punt abortion restrictions to the States might actually cause more abortions than ever. Medical tourism would increase to states that would liberate the termination of unborn lives all the way up to term. The leak, also, might awaken the abortion advocates to travel to pro-life states to vote for leftist representatives that would remove any already existing abortion restrictions.
Pro-lifers are celebrating too early. The opinion that overturns Roe v. Wade, as it stands right now, comes at a great cost of precedent that allows the Supreme Court to galvanize legislators to infringe on rights of the people not enumerated in the Constitution. The balancing of powers is long dead.
The draft opinion shows yet again that the Courts do not focus their powers to protect the rights of the people, only the powers of elected officials. Conservatives would be giving up most of their fundamental protected rights and interests under the constitution through this liberal granting of
powers to states that infringe on the 9th Amendment reserved powers of the people.
Is the draft opinion a wolf in sheep’s clothing lulling pro-lifers, while unabashedly setting precedent limiting rights of the people through the US Constitution? Or is the leaked draft a ploy to undermine the pro-life movement by threatening a flawed Supreme Court ruling with many consequences if Roe v. Wade is overturned?
The justices limited the rights of the people in a feckless attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade without taking a stand on the issue of when an infant has a right to life. The Supreme Court failed to rule on the most fundamental and explicit right in the Constitution the right to LIFE. The justices have not published the decision, so in the meantime they still have the ability to redraft the decision and switch votes. For the first time ever, due to the unprecedented leak, the court of public opinion can try to influence the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States.
✅ Want More *Real News* go to…
✅ How to Bulletproof Your Identity from Thieves
The #1 Secret Weapon to Protect Your Identity from Online Scammers (and we use it too!)
Yes, it blows away all of the other ID protection programs that you’re likely thinking of!
Interested in knowing about it? Let us know… Call/Text (561) 847-3467 Right Now and say “ID Theft”
✅ The #1 Secret on How to CANCEL the Cancel Culture is to support Conservative Business Owners and Entrepreneurs by going to www.ConservativeMarketplace.com Thank you for the Support! We are Always Open and WE LOVE PATRIOTS! Plus we offer a Mask Free – Vax Free Shopping Experience. Now go Shop away at over 150 Items in the Conservative Marketplace… www.ConservativeMarketplace.com
✅ Subscribe to John Di Lemme’s Clouthub Channel and be notified of all LIVE Shows at https://clouthub.com/c/cbjrealnews
✅ Follow John Di Lemme and the CBJ Real News on Telegram at https://t.me/cbjrealnews
✅ Support Patriot Mike Lindell and Receive Up to 66% Off Your Entire Order… Go to www.MyPillow.com/cbj and use Promo Code CBJ to receive your INSTANT Savings!