Justice Amy Coney Barrett this week called for the Supreme Court to adopt an ethics code, calling it a &#8220;good idea.&#8221;
Barrett made the remark during a University of Minnesota Law School event on Monday.
&#8220;It would be a good idea for us to do it,&#8221; Barrett said during a discussion at the event with Robert Stein, a longtime law professor and the American Bar Association&#8217;s former chief operating officer.
&#8220;Particularly so that we can communicate to the public exactly what it is that we are doing in a clearer way,&#8221; Barrett added.
Barrett noted that her fellow justices broadly support the idea of an ethics code such as the ones lower court judges follow.
&#8220;There is no lack of consensus among the justices,&#8221; she <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/amy-coney-barrett-says-supreme-court-ethics-rules-good-idea-rcna120718" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>. &#8220;There&#8217;s unanimity among all nine justices that we should and do hold ourselves to the highest ethical standards possible.&#8221;
The Supreme Court is currently the only court in the federal judiciary that does not require its nine justices to adhere to a formal code of ethics. Although they do not have a formal ethics code, justices do follow other rules such as <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/31/financial-disclosures-clarence-thomas-samuel-alito-scotus-00113595" target="_blank" rel="noopener">filing</a> financial disclosure reports every year.
In April, Justice Clarence Thomas defended traveling with his close friend Harlan Crow, a real estate magnate and billionaire Republican donor, after allegations that he failed to report the trips.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1697304159818000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1PnpIbvspZalTqN1iLUDpA">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
“As friends do, we have joined them on a number of family trips during the more than quarter century we have known them,” Thomas <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/clarence-thomas-shreds-leftist-hit-piece-have-always-sought-to-comply-with-the-disclosure-guidelines" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>. “Early in my tenure at the Court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable.&#8221;
Justice Sonia Sotomayor has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/liberal-scotus-justice-took-3m-from-book-publisher-didnt-recuse-from-its-cases" target="_blank" rel="noopener">attracted ethics concerns</a> around her literary career. Sotomayor&#8217;s taxpayer-funded court staff have been repeatedly involved in setting up speaking events to <a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-sotomayor-book-sales-ethics-colleges-b2cb93493f927f995829762cb8338c02" target="_blank" rel="noopener">promote</a> her memoir and children’s books, which have earned the justice at least $3.7 million.
Justice Samuel Alito was also <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/msnbc-contributor-exploits-missing-sub-tragedy-to-wish-death-on-scotus-justice" target="_blank" rel="noopener">accused</a> of not properly reporting a luxury fishing trip he took to Alaska in 2008, during which he reportedly traveled on a private jet with hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer. Alito was also accused of failing to recuse himself from cases involving Singer.
Alito responded to the criticism in June, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/propublica-misleads-its-readers-alito-gifts-disclosure-alaska-singer-23b51eda?ns=prod/accounts-wsj" target="_blank" rel="noopener">saying</a> that he had no obligation to recuse himself from any of the cases in question because he was unaware of Singer&#8217;s connection to any of them. He added that he had only met Singer on a &#8220;handful of occasions,&#8221; and the two only ever engaged in small talk.
At least two other justices have <a href="https://www.axios.com/2023/08/04/kagan-supreme-court-ethics-code" target="_blank" rel="noopener">indicated</a> they <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/09/07/justice-kavanaugh-ethics-supreme-court/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">support</a> implementing an official ethics code as well, Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
“I’m hopeful that there will be some concrete steps taken soon on that,” Kavanaugh said last month.

Senators Meet With Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett

Justice Amy Coney Barrett Says Supreme Court Ethics Code Is A ‘Good Idea’

Justice Amy Coney Barrett Says Supreme Court Ethics Code Is A 'Good Idea'

Amy Coney Barrett

Brett Kavanaugh

Clarence Thomas

Ethics

Samuel Alito

Supreme Court

&#8220;The View&#8221; host <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/do-they-want-to-live-in-a-handmaids-tale-sunny-hostin-screams-at-white-women-compares-them-to-roaches-voting-for-raid/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sunny Hostin</a>, along with several of her co-hosts, suggested that Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett should recuse herself from cases involving religious liberty — and then claimed that if she were on the Court, she could be impartial.
Hostin — joined by co-hosts Ana Navarro and Joy Behar — argued that Justice Barrett&#8217;s <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/the-view-host-says-justice-barrett-deserved-a-religious-test-even-though-theyre-illegal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">personal religious views</a> and associations made it impossible for her to be impartial when religious liberty was in question. Co-hosts Sara Haines and Alyssa Farah Griffin suggested that personal beliefs and legal philosophy were not necessarily intertwined.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Anti-Catholic bigotry on The View. The cast calls for Justice Amy Coney Barrett to recuse herself from a religious liberty case because she&#39;s Catholic. Joy Behar accuses ACB of renouncing her faith and was corrected. Sunny whines that Catholic justices don&#39;t all recuse themselves <a href="https://t.co/7j5Ss13ag6">pic.twitter.com/7j5Ss13ag6</a>
&mdash; Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) <a href="https://twitter.com/NickFondacaro/status/1597265587536859138?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 28, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Behar began the segment by describing the case — which involves a woman who wants to post a statement declaring that she will not design wedding websites for same-sex couples because of her beliefs — and claimed that Barrett should recuse herself because the People of Praise group to which she belongs supports traditional marriage as well.
Hostin pointed out that Barrett — like several other justices on the Court — is Catholic, and the rest of the Catholic justices do not recuse themselves either. She went on to suggest that Barrett was especially problematic, however, and lamented the fact that there was no procedure for forcing judges to remove themselves from cases.
Griffin jumped in then, arguing that at some point people have to trust the justices to be professionals and pointing out the fact that Hostin is Catholic and could be impartial if called upon — and Hostin agreed, &#8220;I could be impartial.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Sara Haines defends ACB for not refusing herself, noting they need to cite and source their opinions. &quot;So despite maybe not liking where she gets through her legal philosophy, I don&#39;t think it necessarily is immersed in just her religious belief,&quot; she argued. <a href="https://t.co/Gw4fldDaS5">pic.twitter.com/Gw4fldDaS5</a>
&mdash; Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) <a href="https://twitter.com/NickFondacaro/status/1597267003215171584?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 28, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Haines added that while she disagreed personally — with both Barrett&#8217;s judicial philosophy and her religious beliefs — she could also see how the two might not be intertwined.
Navarro objected, claiming that the Court was already facing a &#8220;crisis of credibility&#8221; and arguing that Barrett should recuse herself because the American people might not believe she was able to separate the two. &#8220;We can trust the process, but do I trust the justices?&#8221; she asked.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Pure ignorance. Joy claims ACB holds the rank of &quot;handmaid&quot; within the Catholic Church, citing the Washington Post. Joy continued to condemn ACB for being a member of a Catholic group, which is not a party to the case coming before the court. <a href="https://t.co/Lfy5ymBrIM">pic.twitter.com/Lfy5ymBrIM</a>
&mdash; Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) <a href="https://twitter.com/NickFondacaro/status/1597268877280530433?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 28, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Behar rounded out the segment by noting that some had referred to Barrett as a &#8220;<a href="https://dailywire.com/news/newsweek-forced-to-issue-major-retraction-after-it-smears-amy-coney-barrett-claims-she-belongs-to-sect-that-inspired-the-handmaids-tale/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">handmaid</a>&#8221; within her organization and arguing that because she had some kind of leadership role in that community, that was &#8220;a little different from being a Catholic&#8221; in her mind.

Variety’s 2022 Power Of Women: New York Event Presented By Lifetime – Arrivals

‘I Could Be Impartial’: ‘The View’ Host Demands Justice Barrett Recuse Herself, Suggests She Could Do Better

'The View' Host Demands Justice Barrett Recuse Herself, Suggests She Could Do Better

Alyssa Farah Griffin

Courts

Joy Behar

Sunny Hostin

The View

U.S.

Roughly 500 members of the literary community <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vToh2N4z_Q509Beuyw3oMR9nZCk5PI84TqIR4-sw9lXicS3v4pXzSM8RCf0La0WSBFwnwbinDJ-Tr3L/pub" target="_blank" rel="noopener">published a letter</a> in which they articulated their desire for Penguin Random House to desist from publishing Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s forthcoming book.
Barrett’s book reportedly mentions “how judges are not supposed to bring their personal feelings into how they rule,” The Guardian <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/oct/27/amy-coney-barrett-penguin-random-house-book-deal" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>.
The signatories begin their letter by insisting that they “care deeply about freedom of speech” but declare that it is “imperative” that the publishers “uphold their dedication to freedom of speech with a duty of care.”
Acknowledging that “harm is done to a democracy not only in the form of censorship,” the authors of the letter then assert that publishing Barrett’s book would constitute an “assault on inalienable human rights.”
Of course, the “inalienable human rights” the signatories cite are centered on the right to abortion.  They aver that Barrett, by repealing Roe v. Wade in conjunction with Justices Alito, Roberts, Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Gorsuch was “dismantling protections for the human rights to privacy, self-determination, and bodily autonomy along with the federal right to an abortion in the United States.”
The signatories then buttress their argument by referencing “international human rights organizations” that condemned the Supreme Court for striking down Roe v. Wade. They proclaim that Barrett is “inflicting her own religious and moral agenda upon all Americans while appropriating the rhetoric of even-handedness.”
“This is not just a book that we disagree with, and we are not calling for censorship,” the signatories claim. “Many of us work daily with books we find disagreeable to our personal politics. Rather, this is a case where a corporation has privately funded the destruction of human rights with obscene profits.”
They conclude, “We the undersigned have made the decision to stand by our duty of care while upholding freedom of speech. We cannot stand idly by while our industry misuses free speech to destroy our rights.”
In January 2021, Simon &amp; Schuster dumped the publishing of Missouri GOP Sen. Josh Hawley’s  new book, “The Tyranny of Big Tech,” after Hawley’s actions on January 6.
The conservative publishing house Regnery then decided it would publish Hawley’s book.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
BREAKING: <a href="https://twitter.com/HawleyMO?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@HawleyMO</a> signs with Regnery after Simon &amp; Schuster cancels book. 
Pre-order your copy of “The Tyranny of Big Tech” here: <a href="https://t.co/VoO4t4AqPw">https://t.co/VoO4t4AqPw</a> <a href="https://t.co/mH39qSarKP">https://t.co/mH39qSarKP</a>
&mdash; Regnery Publishing (@Regnery) <a href="https://twitter.com/Regnery/status/1351177970954760192?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 18, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“Thank you to the brave law enforcement officials who have put their lives on the line. The violence must end, those who attacked police and broke the law must be prosecuted, and Congress must get back to work and finish its job,” Hawley said in a Jan. 6 <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/josh-hawleys-book-big-tech-picked-up-by-conservative-publisher-after-cancellation" target="_blank" rel="noopener">message</a>.
Simon &amp; Schuster dropped <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hawley-blasts-simon-schuster-for-canceling-his-book-following-capitol-riots" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hawley</a> the next day.
“After witnessing the disturbing, deadly insurrection that took place on Wednesday in Washington, D.C., Simon &amp; Schuster has decided to cancel publication of Senator Josh Hawley’s forthcoming book,” the publisher said.
“We did not come to this decision lightly,” it continued. “As a publisher it will always be our mission to amplify a variety of voices and viewpoints: at the same time we take seriously our larger public responsibility as citizens, and cannot support Senator Hawley after his role in what became a dangerous threat to our democracy and freedom.”
Tim Pearce contributed to this report.

500 Literary Leftists Demand Publisher Cancel Amy Coney Barrett’s New Book

500 Literary Leftists Demand Publisher Cancel Amy Coney Barrett's New Book

Abortion

Books

Censorship

Politics

Screen Shot 2022-08-27 at 8.45.43 AM

Here’s A Look At Some Of The Activists Who Protest Outside The Supreme Court Justices’ Homes

These Are Some Of The Activists Protesting Outside The Supreme Court Justices' Homes

John Roberts

New reports suggest that Chief Justice John Roberts <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/26/politics/supreme-court-john-roberts-abortion-dobbs/index.html">lobbied hard</a> to prevent the more conservative members of the Supreme Court — namely Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — from voting to <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/pope-says-he-respects-supreme-court-decision-that-overturned-roe/">overturn Roe v. Wade</a>.
Roberts ultimately voted with the six-justice majority upholding a new Mississippi abortion law — capping abortions at 15 weeks — in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, but joined the four-justice minority in voting to uphold Roe. However, he did pen his own dissenting opinion stating that he would have opened the door for states to impose stricter limits on abortions, particularly after the first trimester.
And according to recent reporting, Roberts worked diligently to bring the conservative justices around — until someone leaked an early opinion draft indicating the landmark abortion case, along with the subsequent Planned Parenthood v. Casey, could be in danger.
<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/26/politics/supreme-court-john-roberts-abortion-dobbs/index.html">CNN reported</a> that Roberts had been focused on swaying the two newest justices — Kavanaugh and Barrett — but that he had been derailed somewhat when the leaked draft, authored by Justice Alito, became public.
&#8220;Roberts’ persuasive efforts, difficult even from the start, were thwarted by the sudden public nature of the state of play,&#8221; the report stated. &#8220;He can usually work in private, seeking and offering concessions, without anyone beyond the court knowing how he or other individual justices have voted or what they may be writing.&#8221;
The report also concluded that Roberts&#8217; efforts, however fervent, did not appear to be moving the needle with regard to Kavanaugh and Barrett even before the leak — and added that if threats against their families was not enough to sway them from their position, it was unlikely the Chief Justice would have been successful.
CNN&#8217;s &#8220;New Day&#8221; covered the topic on Tuesday morning as well:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
New CNN reporting from <a href="https://twitter.com/JoanBiskupic?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JoanBiskupic</a>: Chief Justice John Roberts privately lobbied his fellow conservative justices to preserve Roe v. Wade – but the unprecedented leak of the draft opinion may have doomed his efforts. <a href="https://t.co/g0fKkIT14f">pic.twitter.com/g0fKkIT14f</a>
&mdash; New Day (@NewDay) <a href="https://twitter.com/NewDay/status/1551892687447531522?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 26, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
A number of critics followed the decision overturning Roe with accusations against Kavanaugh and Barrett specifically, claiming that <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/pelosi-blasting-abortion-decision-suggests-kavanaugh-gorsuch-lied-hear-rcna35208">they had lied</a> during their Senate confirmation hearings when they stated that the 1973 decision was &#8220;precedent.&#8221;
But both also declined to answer any questions about how they might vote in future cases — as those questions were rooted in hypotheticals — and precedents have been overturned in the past when the law was later found to be unjust. Examples of those include Plessy v. Ferguson — which allowed racial segregation under the banner of &#8220;separate but equal&#8221; and was later overturned in Brown v. Board of Education — and Korematsu v. United States, under which Japanese Americans were rounded up and placed in internment camps while the United States battled the Empire of Japan in World War II.

Supreme Court Justices Pose For Formal Group Photo

Chief Justice Roberts Lobbied Court Conservatives Hard To Salvage Roe: Report

Neil Gorsuch

ShutDownDC announced on Friday that organizers would pay anyone who could tip protesters off to the locations of the conservative Supreme Court justices — and the price increased if they were still at the named location 30 minutes later.
The call for tips went out after news broke that Justice <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/police-arrest-armed-man-near-brett-kavanaughs-home-who-allegedly-wanted-to-kill-the-justice-report/">Brett Kavanaugh</a> had been forced to leave Morton&#8217;s Steak House in Washington, D.C., through a rear exit in order to avoid a crowd of protesters gathered outside the restaurant.
&#8220;DC Service Industry Workers&#8230; If you see Kavanaugh, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Coney Barrett or Roberts DM us with the details! We&#8217;ll venmo you $50 for a confirmed sighting and $200 if they&#8217;re still there 30 mins after your message,&#8221; @ShutDown_DC&#8217;s tweet read.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
DC Service Industry Workers&#8230; If you see Kavanaugh, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Coney Barrett or Roberts DM us with the details! 
We&#39;ll venmo you $50 for a confirmed sighting and $200 if they&#39;re still there 30 mins after your message. <a href="https://t.co/xXWZ5JZiE7">https://t.co/xXWZ5JZiE7</a>
&mdash; ShutDownDC (@ShutDown_DC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ShutDown_DC/status/1545421407223521280?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 8, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Politico&#8217;s Daniel Lippman <a href="https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2022/07/08/schumer-ups-pressure-on-mcconnell-in-usica-reconciliation-dance-00044652?nname=playbook&amp;nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&amp;nrid=0000014c-2414-d9dd-a5ec-34bc527c0005&amp;nlid=630318">reported</a> on Kavanaugh&#8217;s disrupted dinner departure, noting, &#8220;Justice Brett Kavanaugh had to exit through the rear of Morton&#8217;s on Wednesday night after DC protestors showed up out front.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
NEW: Justice Brett Kavanaugh had to exit through the rear of Morton&#39;s on Wednesday night after DC protestors showed up out front. A Morton&#39;s rep told me: &quot;Politics … should not trample the freedom at play of the right to congregate and eat dinner.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/wlA4J2nxYW">https://t.co/wlA4J2nxYW</a> <a href="https://t.co/jpsfhB3JVo">pic.twitter.com/jpsfhB3JVo</a>
&mdash; Daniel Lippman (@dlippman) <a href="https://twitter.com/dlippman/status/1545357451234615298?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 8, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Lippman reported that Kavanaugh did not actually come into contact with any of the protesters but left the restaurant through a back door without staying for dessert.
A spokesperson from Morton&#8217;s gave a statement after the incident, telling Politico, &#8220;Honorable Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh and all of our other patrons at the restaurant were unduly harassed by unruly protestors while eating dinner at our Morton’s restaurant. Politics, regardless of your side or views, should not trample the freedom at play of the right to congregate and eat dinner. There is a time and place for everything. Disturbing the dinner of all of our customers was an act of selfishness and void of decency.&#8221;
Fox News White House Correspondent Peter Doocy questioned Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre about the incident, asking whether President Joe Biden and his administration had any issues with protesters continuing to harass the conservative justices outside their homes or in public.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Doocy on Kavanaugh being forced out of a DC restaurant by protesters: &quot;So these Justices, because protesters do not agree with an opinion&#8230; have no right to privacy?&quot;
Jean-Pierre: &quot;This is what a democracy is.&quot;<a href="https://t.co/26EIf4ptiZ">pic.twitter.com/26EIf4ptiZ</a>
&mdash; Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1545472464511197185?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 8, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;People should be allowed to be able to do that,&#8221; Jean-Pierre replied. &#8220;If it&#8217;s outside of a restaurant, if it&#8217;s peaceful, for sure.&#8221;
Doocy pressed again, asking whether she meant that the administration was signing off on protesters following the justices around simply because they didn&#8217;t like a ruling the court had issued.
&#8220;People have the right — this is what a democracy is,&#8221; Jean-Pierre insisted.

President Trump Gives State Of The Union Address

ShutDownDC Promises To Pay Tipsters For SCOTUS Whereabouts

Shut Down DC Promises To Pay Tipsters For SCOTUS Whereabouts

WASHINGTON — The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court">U.S. Supreme Court</a> has overturned the monumental <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/roe-v-wade">Roe v. Wade</a> case that legalized abortion across the America.
The 6-3 decision in Dobbs v.s. Jackson Women&#8217;s Health Organization on Friday followed the early May leak of a draft opinion indicating which way the justices would rule. That leak prompted protesting across the nation, particularly in Washington, D.C. as well as dozens of attacks and vandalism of pro-life organizations, centers, and churches.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote that Roe and a subsequent case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld Roe, both must be overturned, and the right to allow, deny, or restrict the right to an abortion must reside with states.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Crowd is growing outside SCOTUS. Pro abortion protestors chant “illegitimate! Illegitimate!” <a href="https://t.co/1O7S2BASRs">pic.twitter.com/1O7S2BASRs</a>
&mdash; Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) <a href="https://twitter.com/MaryMargOlohan/status/1540353547241390080?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 24, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division,&#8221; Alito wrote in his majority opinion, which was strikingly similar to the earlier leaked draft. &#8220;It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people&#8217;s elected representatives.&#8221;
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/read-it-supreme-courts-213-page-decision-overturning-roe-v-wade">READ IT: SUPREME COURT DECISION OVERTURNING ROE V. WADE</a>
Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote a concurring opinion in Dobbs v.s. Jackson Women&#8217;s Health Organization, a challenge to a Mississippi law greatly restricting the federal right to abortion, said the ruling did not need to go as far as overturning Roe v. Wade.
“The Court’s decision to overrule Roe and Casey is a serious jolt to the legal system—regardless of how you view those cases,&#8221; Roberts wrote. &#8220;A narrower decision rejecting the misguided viability line would be markedly less unsettling, and nothing more is needed to decide this case.”
The leaked draft, substantially the same as Friday&#8217;s decision, had already galvanized pro- and anti-abortion foes outside the Supreme Court building and even the homes of conservative justices.
Hundreds of people gathered at the court Friday, carrying signs and shouting slogans. Police cordoned off the groups, hoping to avoid violence in the wake of the polarizing decision.
<div class="getty embed image" style="background-color: #fff; display: inline-block; font-family: Roboto,sans-serif; color: #a7a7a7; font-size: 11px; width: 100%; max-width: 594px;">
<div style="padding: 0; margin: 0; text-align: left;"><a style="color: #a7a7a7; text-decoration: none; font-weight: normal !important; border: none; display: inline-block;" href="http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/1241501847" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Embed from Getty Images</a></div>
<div style="overflow: hidden; position: relative; height: 0; padding: 67.676765% 0 0 0; width: 100%;"><iframe loading="lazy" style="display: inline-block; position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; margin: 0;" src="//embed.gettyimages.com/embed/1241501847?et=sm8m31eGR5ZuHH54XZFuSw&amp;tld=com&amp;sig=-W3HOsGrAwOw7M7HF_mvAO6K6U_BuRfdrzhWl56yGXg=&amp;caption=true&amp;ver=1" width="594" height="402" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe></div>
</div>
&nbsp;
The decision leaves it to states to impose restrictions on abortion. Several are expected to move closer to outright bans, while liberal states are expected to retain or even expand protections for abortion.
Alito was joined by the Supreme Court&#8217;s other conservative justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts. All three liberal judges &#8211; Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Sonya Sotomayor &#8211; dissented.
The Supreme Court began arguments on <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/how-a-lawsuit-from-mississippis-lone-licensed-abortion-clinic-led-to-the-supreme-court-case-of-a-generation">Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization</a> in December after the only licensed abortion clinic in Mississippi won lawsuits challenging the state’s 15-week abortion ban. 
The district court granted the abortion clinic a temporary restraining order and then enjoined the state from enforcing the 15-week abortion ban, ruling that Mississippi did not prove an unborn baby is viable at 15 weeks, arguing based on the precedent set by Roe that the state could not ban abortion before viability.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
What’s next? I asked this protestor.
“We’re going to be in these streets all day and all night. We need to turn these tears into anger.” <a href="https://t.co/FyuNDzHW7z">pic.twitter.com/FyuNDzHW7z</a>
&mdash; Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) <a href="https://twitter.com/MaryMargOlohan/status/1540355204087947265?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 24, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court’s decision, leading Mississippi to petition the Supreme Court. In the state’s brief to the Court, the petitioners acknowledged the lower courts were required to strike down the 15-week abortion ban and pled with the court to review the precedent set by Roe and Casey. Their <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf">brief</a> did not mince words: “Roe and Casey are egregiously wrong.” It was a direct challenge to the precedent set by the majority in the 1973 case. 
In its petition to the nation’s highest court, Mississippi questioned whether the Supreme Court’s precedents set by Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey were constitutional, arguing, “The conclusion that abortion is a constitutional right has no basis in text, structure, history, or tradition.” 
In the end, the high court agreed.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/roe-v-wade">ROE V. WADE&#8217;S LONG AND BRUTAL LEGACY</a>
On June 8, police arrested 26-year-old Nicholas John Roske in the Washington suburb of Chevy Case, Maryland. A DOJ <a href="https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22056069/roskenicholas.pdf">affidavit details</a> how Roske allegedly traveled to Kavanaugh’s home armed with weapons and burglary tools with the intent to kill the justice and prevent him from ruling on <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/second-amendment">Second Amendment</a> and abortion cases.
Roske has been charged with attempted murder of a federal judge, the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/department-of-justice">Department of Justice</a> confirmed to The Daily Wire.
The California man had found Kavanaugh’s address online, an FBI affidavit said (pro-abortion advocates with a group called Ruth Sent Us had posted the address online, sparking heavy criticism from those who feared for the justices’ safety).
He told authorities that he was upset about the “leak of a recent Supreme Court draft decision regarding the right to abortion as well as the recent school shooting in Uvalde, Texas,” indicating that “he believed the Justice that he intended to kill would side with Second Amendment decisions that would loosen gun control laws.”
“Roske stated that he began thinking about how to give his life a purpose and decided that he would kill the Supreme Court Justice after finding the Justice’s Montgomery County address on the Internet,” the affidavit said. “Roske further indicated that he had purchased the Glock pistol and other items for the purpose of breaking into the Justice’s residence and killing the Justice as well as himself.”
Zach Jewell contributed to this report.
This is a developing news story; refresh the page for updates.

Screen Shot 2022-05-03 at 2.15.28 PM

United States Supreme Court Overturns Roe V. Wade; Leaves Abortion Restrictions To States

Donald Trump

Roe v. Wade's Long And Brutal Legacy

Pro-abortion protestors marched in front of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s home on Saturday wearing “blood” stained clothing and carrying toy dolls to protest the court’s potential overturn of Roe v. Wade.
The Saturday action adds to a series of protests at the residences of conservative Supreme Court justices.
“We aren’t incubators! Youth procession delivered baby dolls to Amy Coney Barrett. We aren’t protesting to change the minds of women-hating fascists. We’re calling on the pro-choice majority, on YOU, to get in the streets to STOP <a class="editor-rtfLink" href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SCOTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1538263973732163586%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fus%2Fpro-choice-protesters-coney-barrett-home-blood-and-doll-props&amp;src=hashtag_click" target="_blank" rel="noopener">#SCOTUS</a> from overturning Roe,” the Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights Twitter account posted along with a video of the protest.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
We aren&#39;t incubators! Youth procession delivered baby dolls to Amy Coney Barrett. We aren’t protesting to change the minds of women-hating fascists.We&#39;re calling on the pro-choice majority, on YOU, to get in the streets to STOP <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SCOTUS?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SCOTUS</a> from overturning Roe<a href="https://t.co/Y0oCPlHcsr">https://t.co/Y0oCPlHcsr</a> <a href="https://t.co/nkHT7iamHO">pic.twitter.com/nkHT7iamHO</a>
&mdash; Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights (@riseup4abortion) <a href="https://twitter.com/riseup4abortion/status/1538263973732163586?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 18, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
“Children forced to give birth to children! Women will be inferior! ALL OF U WHO ARE PRO CHOICE. Come to DC &amp; stay!” one protestor <a class="editor-rtfLink" href="https://twitter.com/riseup4abortion/status/1538244755473289217" target="_blank" rel="noopener">declared</a> in another post by the group.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Watch: 15 yr old Ariana who organized a baby doll procession speaks powerfully in front Amy Coney Barrett’s house
“Children forced to give birth to children! Women will be inferior! ALL OF U WHO ARE PRO CHOICE. Come to DC &amp; stay!”<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RiseUp4AbortionRights?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RiseUp4AbortionRights</a> <a href="https://t.co/ARhwVoSyWL">pic.twitter.com/ARhwVoSyWL</a>
&mdash; Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights (@riseup4abortion) <a href="https://twitter.com/riseup4abortion/status/1538244755473289217?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 18, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The demonstration occurred just two days after President Joe Biden signed a bill to expand security protection for Supreme Court justices and their family members on Thursday.
The bill passed 396-27 on Tuesday, with all 27 votes opposing the legislation coming from Democrats. The bill passed unanimously in the Senate.
It was previously introduced by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) in May following a leak of a Supreme Court opinion from Justice Samuel Alito. Alito’s draft indicated that the court might be set to overturn the Roe v. Wade precedent and return decisions regarding abortion laws to individual states.
The protest was in addition to a <a class="editor-rtfLink" href="https://www.nationalreview.com/news/protesters-descend-on-amy-coney-barretts-home-one-day-after-kavanaugh-assassination-plot/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">June 9 protest</a> at Coney Barrett’s home, just one day after authorities arrested a man near Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s residence for attempted murder.
“U.S. Deputy Marshals reported seeing a person dressed in black clothing, and carrying a backpack and suitcase, get out of a taxi that stopped in front of a current justice’s house at roughly 1:05 a.m., according to an <a class="editor-rtfLink" href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.514015/gov.uscourts.mdd.514015.1.1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">affidavit</a>,” CBS News <a class="editor-rtfLink" href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/man-indicted-by-grand-jury-for-attempting-to-murder-kavanaugh/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>.
The unprecedented leak has led to protests at the homes of other conservative justices. In addition, pro-life centers and houses of worship have been <a class="editor-rtfLink" href="https://nypost.com/2022/06/17/fbi-probes-attacks-on-pro-life-groups-as-roe-v-wade-decision-looms/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">vandalized and attacked</a> following the leak, with many of the incidents claimed by a pro-abortion group called Jane’s Revenge.
“We will never stop, back down, slow down, or retreat. We did not want this; but it is upon us, and so we must deal with it proportionally. We exist in confluence and solidarity with all others in the struggle for complete liberation,” members of Jane’s Revenge said in a <a class="editor-rtfLink" href="https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2022/06/14/janes-revenge-another-communique/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">letter</a> last week.
“Our recourse now is to defend ourselves and to build robust, caring communities of mutual aid, so that we may heal ourselves without the need of the medical industry or any other intermediary. Through attacking, we find joy, courage, and strip the veneer of impenetrability held by these violent institutions,” the letter added.

Pro-Abortion Protestors Rally At Supreme Court Justice Barret’s Home

Pro-Abortion Protestors March At Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s Home With Blood And Doll Props

Pro-Abortion Protestors March At Justice Amy Coney Barrett's Home 

Pro-Life Movement

Protesters

Virginia

A small group of pro-abortion protestors demonstrated in front of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett&#8217;s home on Wednesday evening, prompting criticism from one of the justice&#8217;s neighbors.
&#8220;They shouldn&#8217;t be doing this,&#8221; he told The Daily Signal&#8217;s Doug Blair, before telling the protestors: &#8220;Go home and get a family.&#8221;
&#8220;It&#8217;s none of their business, why are they are here?&#8221; he asked. The neighbor said that he thinks it is &#8220;of course&#8221; inappropriate for the protestors, who were dressed as handmaids, to demonstrate in Barrett&#8217;s neighborhood.
&#8220;They have the right to protest but not in front of someone&#8217;s house,&#8221; he said. &#8220;They live here, this is where she lives.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Spoke with one of Justice Barrett’s neighbors. He says the protestors should “Go home and get a family.” <a href="https://t.co/wBWLWOJfAt">pic.twitter.com/wBWLWOJfAt</a>
&mdash; Douglas Blair (@DouglasKBlair) <a href="https://twitter.com/DouglasKBlair/status/1524536276355104769?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 11, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The demonstration in front of Barrett&#8217;s home follows much larger protests at the homes of Justices Brett Kavanaugh, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito over the past week since the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion showing that the court is likely preparing to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Protests also took place outside the United States Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., in <a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-05-03/downtown-los-angeles-roe-wade-protest">Los Angeles</a> (where protestors violently clashed with police) and in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/03/nyregion/abortion-protest-new-york-supreme-court.html">New York City</a>.
Footage captured by Blair and The Daily Signal&#8217;s Virginia Allen on Wednesday night shows a group of seven protestors walking around the cul-de-sac in the justice&#8217;s neighborhood.
&#8220;The protest was quiet, only seven people, but the message was clear and direct from the pro-abortion protesters,&#8221; Allen told The Daily Wire. &#8220;They believe that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, America will become like &#8216;The Handmaid’s Tale.'&#8221;
&#8220;A few of the protestors were willing to talk to press, but they seemed annoyed that it was mainly conservative press covering the protest,&#8221; she added. &#8220;The male protester was more willing to talk to me than the other protesters. I asked him when he thinks life begins. He would not answer my question.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Handmaid&#39;s Tale is at Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s home. <a href="https://t.co/mCQrrgo4Lt">pic.twitter.com/mCQrrgo4Lt</a>
&mdash; Virginia Allen (@Virginia_Allen5) <a href="https://twitter.com/Virginia_Allen5/status/1524532379544662017?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 11, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
I asked this pro-abortion protester at Justice Barrett’s house when life begins. He would not answer my question. <a href="https://t.co/YlGWtxJ0V3">pic.twitter.com/YlGWtxJ0V3</a>
&mdash; Virginia Allen (@Virginia_Allen5) <a href="https://twitter.com/Virginia_Allen5/status/1524540946460860419?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 12, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The pro-abortion social media account Ruth Sent Us said that it had organized the protest in a Wednesday evening tweet.
Ruth Sent Us has also called for protesting in Catholic Churches in violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which <a href="https://www.justice.gov/crt/offenses-against-reproductive-health-care-providers">prohibits</a> “violent, threatening, damaging and obstructive conduct intended to injure, intimidate, or interfere with the right” to obtain abortions.
&#8220;We organized this,&#8221; tweeted Ruth Sent Us, which has also <a href="https://twitter.com/RuthSentUs/status/1522942814895546370?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1523277582644523008%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fus%2Factivist-group-threatens-burn-eucharist-display-disgust-catholics">threatened</a> to burn the Eucharist. &#8220;We have been mass-reported since last week on all social media, suffered death threats, doxxing, and a SWAT attempt.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
.We organized this. We have been mass-reported since last week on all social media, suffered death threats, doxxing, and a SWAT attempt.
Please RT and follow us to see more protests daily, and battle MAGAs in our comments. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DefendRoe?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#DefendRoe</a> with <a href="https://twitter.com/prochoiceheart?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@prochoiceheart</a> &amp; <a href="https://twitter.com/riseup4abortion?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@riseup4abortion</a> <a href="https://t.co/F3JLfxYk8f">pic.twitter.com/F3JLfxYk8f</a>
&mdash; Ruth Sent Us 🪧 (@RuthSentUs) <a href="https://twitter.com/RuthSentUs/status/1524594131485347840?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 12, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Stuff your rosaries and your weaponized prayer.
We will remain outraged after this weekend, so keep praying.
We’ll be burning the Eucharist to show our disgust for the abuse Catholic Churches have condoned for centuries. <a href="https://t.co/1UxAkyuXTg">pic.twitter.com/1UxAkyuXTg</a>
&mdash; Ruth Sent Us 🪧 (@RuthSentUs) <a href="https://twitter.com/RuthSentUs/status/1522942814895546370?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 7, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Blair told The Daily Wire that some of the handmaid protestors at Barrett&#8217;s home on Wednesday night recognized him from his coverage of protests at Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh&#8217;s and Chief Justice John Roberts&#8217; homes.
&#8220;Two of the protestors referenced my Fox and Friends hit where I said it was one of the scariest things I’d ever seen,&#8221; he said. &#8220;They said something along the lines of &#8216;We’re surprised you’re here since you were so scared on Saturday.'&#8221;
&#8220;And then they called me a two bit reporter from Fox News,&#8221; he said with amusement.
The protestors carried signs that said &#8220;keep your rosaries off my ovaries&#8221; and &#8220;we did not elect people of praise,&#8221; referencing attacks on Barrett during her confirmation hearings, when media, Democrats, and activists <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2020/09/26/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-attacks-democrats-media/">portrayed</a> Barrett as an “extremist” Catholic radical determined to overturn Roe v. Wade and take a knife to the Affordable Care Act.
The justices critics went so far as to suggest that Barrett adopted her children for nefarious reasons, suggesting that her Catholicism made her unfit to serve as a judge. Media also disingenuously <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2020/09/22/media-catholic-people-of-praise-amy-coney-barrett-handmaids-tale/">highlighted</a> Barrett’s reported connections to the Catholic group People of Praise, <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2020/09/23/reuters-amy-coney-barrett-handmaids-tale-people-of-praise/">falsely reporting</a> that the group was the inspiration for Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale.”

Handmaid’s

Amy Coney Barrett’s Neighbor Has A Message For Pro-Abortion Handmaids Demonstrating At Her House

Handmaids Demonstrate At Amy Coney Barrett's Family Home 

An activist dressed in a costume inspired by Margaret Atwood&#8217;s &#8220;The Handmaid&#8217;s Tale” and protesting outside the home of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/justice-barrett-mom-5-doesnt-know-full-term-pregnancy-handmaid-protester">insisted</a> that Barrett had no idea of what it was like to give birth.
Barrett has five biological children and has adopted two more children.
Accompanied by six other women dressed in “Handmaid’s Tale” outfits as they circled the cul-de-sac around Barrett’s home, the woman preached to a reporter, “She’s Catholic. Catholic is letting their religious doctrine interfere with their ability to write sound legal doctrine. It&#8217;s also possible that the fact that she is an adoptive mother is influencing her inability to see what it&#8217;s like to carry a pregnancy to term.”
“Well, she’s had five kids by herself,” the reporter pointed out.
Cornered, the activist switched gears: “Not everybody wants to have five kids or four kids or one kid.&#8221;
“Not all Catholics are anti-choice,” the activist pronounced, ignoring the distinction between Catholics who observe traditional Catholic doctrine and those who don’t. “So it would make no sense to protest an entire religion.”
“Again, nobody should be ashamed of their religion, nobody should not be Catholic,” she patronized.
Another woman carrying a sign reading &#8220;Keep your rosaries off my ovaries” chimed in, “We have no issue with Catholicism. However in this country, there’s a separation of church and state. So somebody’s religion, no matter what that might be, cannot dictate how they carry out their job as a public official.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Handmaid&#39;s Tale is at Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s home. <a href="https://t.co/mCQrrgo4Lt">pic.twitter.com/mCQrrgo4Lt</a>
&mdash; Virginia Allen (@Virginia_Allen5) <a href="https://twitter.com/Virginia_Allen5/status/1524532379544662017?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 11, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The energy is markedly more negative outside Kavanaugh’s house. The anger has become much more palpable than outside any other justices’ house. <a href="https://t.co/zY2OY34hcA">pic.twitter.com/zY2OY34hcA</a>
&mdash; Douglas Blair (@DouglasKBlair) <a href="https://twitter.com/DouglasKBlair/status/1523095574156742657?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 8, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito have also had protests outside of their homes. One of Barrett’s neighbors told <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/justice-barrett-mom-5-doesnt-know-full-term-pregnancy-handmaid-protester">Fox News</a> that the Barretts were &#8220;scared, and they wanted prayers,” adding, &#8220;The whole neighborhood&#8217;s been supportive of that.”
Daniel L. Dreisbach, the author of &#8220;Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State,&#8221; has explained in a <a href="https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-mythical-wall-separation-how-misused-metaphor-changed-church-state-law">comprehensive essay</a> that the famed “wall of separation” between church and state cited in the 1947 case Everson v. Board of Education was a stretch from the original intent of President Thomas Jefferson’s use of the phrase in his 1802 letter to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut.
“Throughout his public career, including two terms as President, Jefferson pursued policies incompatible with the ‘high and impregnable’ wall the modern Supreme Court has erroneously attributed to him,” Dreisbach noted. “For example, he endorsed the use of federal funds to build churches and to support Christian missionaries working among the Indians.”
“Jefferson&#8217;s wall, as a matter of federalism, was erected between the national and state governments on matters pertaining to religion and not, more generally, between the church and all civil government,” Dreisbach continued. “In other words, Jefferson placed the federal government on one side of his wall and state governments and churches on the other.”
“The differences between the two walls are suggested by Jefferson&#8217;s record as a public official in both Virginia and the nation, which shows that he initiated practices and implemented policies inconsistent with Justice Black&#8217;s and the modern Supreme Court&#8217;s ‘high and impregnable’ wall of separation,” Dreisbach stated.
Pointing out that Jefferson’s use of the phrase was metaphorical, Dreisbach concluded, “The wall is politically divisive. Because it is so concrete and unyielding, its very invocation forecloses meaningful dialogue regarding the prudential and constitutional role of religion, faith communities, and religious citizens in public life.”

Supreme Court Justice Nominee Amy Coney Barrett Meets With Senators Ahead Of Confirmation Vote

‘Handmaid’s Tale’ Activist Targeting Barrett’s Home Rants SCOTUS Justice Never Bore Children. Barrett Has 5 Biological Children.

Pro-abortion activist protesting at Amy Coney Barrett's home says Barrett never bore children, Barrett has 5 biological kids.

Children

Handmaid's Tale

On Monday evening, Politico <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/shapiro-draft-supreme-court-majority-opinion-leaks-striking-down-roe-v-wade-heres-what-all-of-that-means">dropped</a> a massive leak &#8212; Supreme Court decision before the Court had even officially handed it down. According to the leaked draft, which is 98 pages, the majority opinion held that Roe v. Wade “was egregiously wrong from the start,” effectively overturning the landmark decision that legalized abortion around the country. 
The Politico report sent the country into rage, rejoice, and confusion. But what does the leaked initial draft say about abortion going forward, and what does it mean if the court follows through with this decision? 
Here are five takeaways from the leaked majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization:
1. “Roe and Casey Must Be Overruled”
Justice Samuel Alito, the author of the draft, states the decision plainly for all to understand: Roe and Casey were poor decisions and do not hold up under the scrutiny of the Constitution. 
Roe v. Wade was the landmark decision in 1973 that struck down Texas state laws criminalizing abortion. Roe determined that the Constitution did not allow states to punish abortion, effectively legalizing the practice nationwide. In a 7-2 decision, the justices used the 14th Amendment to argue that a “woman’s right” to an abortion is protected by her “right to privacy.” 
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) was decided nearly 20 years after the Roe decision came down, and in a 5-4 decision, the justices reaffirmed Roe and also set a standard in place to determine if a state set certain requirements on women wanting an abortion. They called the standard the “<a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/91-744">undue burden</a>,” explaining it as a “substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.”
In the leaked majority opinion from Dobbs, Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito reportedly agree that Roe and Casey have no foundation in Constitutional law. 
Alito writes, “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 chiefly rely–the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
The draft goes on to say that the Due Process Clause – which guarantees due process of law before the government can take away life, liberty, or property – does not include “some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution,” including the “right to privacy.”
On this basis, the majority reasons, Roe and Casey cannot stand. 
2. The Constitution Requires Abortion To Be Decided by the States
Before Roe, abortion was left up to the states. In 1970, New York legalized the practice, becoming “a magnet for women who wanted to terminate their pregnancies but were barred from doing so where they lived,” as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/us/politics/new-york-abortion-roe-wade-nyt.html">The New York Times</a> put it. Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington also repealed abortion bans between 1967 and 1973. Another 13 states allowed for more abortion exceptions without fully legalizing it.
After the Roe ruling came down, state laws against abortion became impossible to enforce, but some states have continued to push for abortion bans. Those recent actions on abortion are what led to Monday’s leaked decision, which is expected to be handed out by the Court in the coming months.
In 2018, Mississippi passed a law banning abortions after the baby reached 15 weeks gestation. The only licensed abortion agency in the state, Jackson Women’s Health Organization, sued. A district court ruled that Mississippi could not enforce a 15-week abortion ban, arguing that the state did not prove a baby has viability at 15 weeks. A U.S. Appeals Court upheld the decision, and the case came before the U.S. Supreme Court in December.
Mississippi is far from the only state seeking to ban some abortions. Eight states, including Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, South Carolina, and Texas have recently passed heartbeat bills, banning abortions after an unborn baby’s heartbeat can be detected. There are also <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2022/04/12/america-after-roe-v-wade/">26 states</a> that would likely ban abortions after Roe is overturned. Abortion would still be legal in most cases in the remaining 24 states. 
That is the reality the justices say the Constitution demands. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives,” Alito wrote. 
3. Overturning Precedent 
In the Dobbs v Jackson draft opinion, the Court overrules prior precedent set by Roe, and Alito notes that “Some of our most important constitutional decisions have overruled prior precedents.”
He points to the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, a case that established the “separate but equal” treatment of black Americans. “In Brown v. Board of Education, the Court repudiated the ‘separate but equal’ doctrine, which had allowed States to maintain racially segregated schools and other facilities,” Alito writes. “In doing so, the Court overruled the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson … along with six other Supreme Court precedents that had applied the separate-but-equal rule.”
The majority opinion reminds us that “adherence to precedent is the norm but not an inexorable command.” The precedent set in Roe does not require the Court to uphold the decision, especially when the majority questions its constitutionality. 
“Roe … was remarkably loose in its treatment of the constitutional text,” Alito writes. “It held that the abortion right, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, is part of a right to privacy, which is also not mentioned.”
Once again, Alito writes with unmistakable clarity. Neither the right to an abortion nor the right to privacy appears anywhere in the Constitution, so federal law cannot stop a state from prohibiting abortion based on the Constitution. 
The Court, in the draft, gets back to the originalist interpretation of the Constitution, making it clear that a legal ruling handed down from the Court cannot be made on the basis of cultural activism but only on Constitutional law. 
Alito continues: “Roe expressed the ‘feel[ing]’ that the Fourteenth Amendment was the provision that did not work, but its message seemed to be that the abortion right could be found somewhere in the Constitution and that specifying its exact location was not of paramount importance.”
The Dobbs ruling would set a new precedent, changing how abortion will be argued before the Court in the future. The so-called “right to privacy” is not a valid legal argument for the constitutionality of abortion. Abortion supporters who maneuvered their way through arguments in 1973 can no longer rely on their “loose … treatment of the Constitutional text” to argue for a right to abortion. 
4. Roe and Casey Have Divided the Country
A point easily lost in the bombshell report is the reason these cases have caused so much panic in the first place. Even some liberals will admit Roe and Casey were poorly reasoned arguments, with little-to-no basis in the Constitution, and were decided more on political motivations than on Constitutional principles. So it should be no surprise that the decisions led to years of division and hostility between political parties, friends, neighbors, and family.
&#8220;Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division,&#8221; Alito writes. 
But the draft stresses that the latest decision was not affected by current or future political reactions to the issue. 
“We cannot allow our decisions to be affected by any extraneous influences such as concern about the public’s reaction to our work,” Alito explains. “We do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to today’s decision overruling Roe and Casey. And even if we could foresee what will happen, we would have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision.”
The justices might not know exactly how the country will react to this decision, but everyone has a good idea that the overturning of Roe will have just as much, if not more, of a divisive effect as the original decision.
Not only was Roe a landmark decision in terms of judicial precedent, but it was also a decision that set the table for next decades of the culture wars. Just as Roe led to an extreme partisan divide in the past, its reversal will lead to more division. 
5. There&#8217;s a Racial Disparity to Abortion
Justice Alito ventured into even more controversial territory in his draft opinion, as he writes of the early supporters of abortion who favored eugenics, especially as a way to control the black population. 
“Some such supporters have been motivated by a desire to suppress the size of the African American population,” Alito writes. “It is beyond dispute that Roe has had that demographic effect. A highly disproportionate percentage of aborted fetuses are black.”
He is correct in his connection of abortion to racism. In the early 20th Century, some of the most influential abortion advocates, such as Planned Parenthood founder <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/planned-parenthood-ny-will-remove-margaret-sangers-name-from-clinic-over-harmful-connections-to-racism-eugenics">Margaret Sanger</a>, also supported eugenics and had ties to racism. Planned Parenthood even removed Sanger’s name from one of their clinic’s after backlash from people pointing out Sanger’s racism.
Statistical evidence also proves abortion’s disproportionate effect on the black community. 
According to a Congressional <a href="https://www.congress.gov/115/meeting/house/106562/witnesses/HHRG-115-JU10-Wstate-ParkerS-20171101-SD001.pdf">report</a> from June 2015, black women made up 36% of all women getting abortions while only making up 14% of “the childbearing population.” Since 1973, over 19 million black babies have been aborted, meaning around 30% of all aborted babies were black, even though African-Americans make up only 12% of the U.S. population.
Opponents of abortion have long pointed out this harrowing reality. To have the argument written down in a Supreme Court decision cements its importance in history for all to see. 
The views expressed in this piece are the author&#8217;s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Roe v Wade

5 Key Takeaways From The Leaked Majority Opinion Draft Overruling Roe V. Wade

5 Key Takeaways From The Leaked Majority Opinion Overruling Roe V. Wade

Planned Parenthood

Readers Pass

The United States Supreme Court has voted to strike down the controversial Roe v. Wade decision, according to an initial draft of the majority opinion obtained by Politico.
The draft, written by Justice Samuel Alito, &#8220;is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision – Planned Parenthood v. Casey – that largely maintained the right,&#8221; Politico <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473">reported</a>. &#8220;Deliberations on controversial cases have in the past been fluid. Justices can and sometimes do change their votes as draft opinions circulate and major decisions can be subject to multiple drafts and vote-trading, sometimes until just days before a decision is unveiled. The court’s holding will not be final until it is published, likely in the next two months.&#8221;
Alito reportedly writes in a document titled &#8220;Opinion of the Court&#8221; that &#8220;Roe was egregiously wrong from the start&#8221; and that &#8220;we hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled.&#8221;
&#8220;It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives,&#8221; he reportedly added.
Politico&#8217;s report said that they received a copy of the draft opinion from &#8220;a person familiar with the court&#8217;s proceedings in the Mississippi case along with other details supporting the authenticity of the document.&#8221;
Other Supreme Court Justices that sided with Alito included Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. It is not clear how Chief Justice John Roberts will vote.
“The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion,” the draft concludes. “Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”
The draft&#8217;s leak caused an immediate reaction online with notable figures and publications weighing in on the matter, including SCOTUSblog, which wrote: &#8220;It’s impossible to overstate the earthquake this will cause inside the Court, in terms of the destruction of trust among the Justices and staff. This leak is the gravest, most unforgivable sin.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
It’s impossible to overstate the earthquake this will cause inside the Court, in terms of the destruction of trust among the Justices and staff. This leak is the gravest, most unforgivable sin.
&mdash; SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1521295411545260035?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 3, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Other notable initial responses to the leak included:
<ul>
<li>Megyn Kelly, journalist: &#8220;Omg. Legal earthquake if true but first: how in God’s name did a draft SCOTUS OPINION LEAK? Insanely unorthodox, inappropriate, UNPRECEDENTED. Disgusting breach, frankly. Will be major investigation into who did it.&#8221;</li>
<li>Allie Beth Stuckey, podcast host: &#8220;As happy as I am about the SCOTUS abortion decision &#8211; why leak it now? So the leftists’ weeping and gnashing of teeth can get Roberts to change his mind?&#8221;</li>
<li>Scott Jennings, CNN commentator: &#8220;I hope the leaker is found and prosecuted if this an attempt to violate this institution and bully the Court. Stay the course, Constitutional conservatives.&#8221;</li>
</ul>
This article was expanded after publication to include additional information.

Washington, D.C., scenes

Supreme Court Strikes Down Roe V. Wade Decision In Draft Of Majority Opinion, Report Says

Supreme Court Strikes Down Roe V. Wade Decision In Draft Of Majority Opinion, POLITICO Reports

Menu