Open/Close Menu وکیل | مشاوره رایگان | وکالت | وکیل آنلاین

Below is my column in Hill about the disclosure of the draft opinion on abortion from the Supreme Court. The media and political figures, while exposing themselves, have increased their rhetoric to “burn the court” or fill it with credible liberal votes. As these experts oppose the interpretation of the constitution, they now say that the whole institution is illegitimate.

“We must focus on the legitimacy of the court itself,” wrote Dalia Litvik of Slate, while CNN senior political analyst Gloria Burger He stated that the judges of the Supreme Court were “just a group of politicians in uniform”. “If you have any doubts about the system’s capacity to administer justice, they have just been approved,” said historian Jon Meacham. Since the Court has accepted an interpretation that is unconstitutional, we once again ignored the summons from the court package to the burning. Under these circumstances, the White House could not even dare to condemn the protesters who came to the judges’ houses to harass them. While the legitimacy of the court is being questioned, the targeting of judges and their families is not in doubt.

Here is the column:

Five seemingly obvious words from the Supreme Court – “the court has no opinion” – sounded like lightning late Monday night. Politico recently released a draft majority opinion that overturned Wade and her children in the best-selling abortion case. Dobbs Women’s Health Organization vs. Jackson.

Certainly most of the court observers hoped that this was a complex trick, that no one would violate all legal and judicial ethics by disclosing the draft opinion. But the court did not deny.

The draft opinion is subject to change and may in fact have already changed both in its analysis and in its support. Draft opinions The majority have a bad habit of turning into opposition or fragmentation, because judges work through the details of a case.

This comment was written by Associate Justice Samuel Alito And the judges joined it Clarence Thomas، Neil Gorsuch، Brett Kavanagh And Amy Connie Bart. If he does not change, he declares that “Ro and Casey should be ignored. “It’s time to pay attention to the constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s electorate.”

Such a ruling returns the issue of reproductive rights to governments. Most of them are likely to continue to support the right, but this is an issue that each state must resolve through its democratic process.

Draft uncertainty and future uncertainty did not stop the immediate and dystopian predictions. Pervert. Jimmy Ruskin (D-Md.) Announced immediately“So, it seems like an invitation to have Handmaid’s Tale laws and regulations all over the country.”

The final language and the meaning of the decision in the true sense of the word have not yet been written. What is clear is that the court itself has faced one of the greatest scandals in its history, and certainly the greatest crisis that the Chief Justice has faced. John Roberts During his tenure

Even in a city where information is leaked from every organization and every corner of the government, this was an indescribable immoral act. The Supreme Court deals with transformational cases that enter the heart of our political, cultural, and religious divisions, yet judges and staff have maintained a civilized and confidential tradition of such drafts.

So what changed?

We changed.

We do not know what motivated this whistleblower other than launching a public and political storm. It is alleged that the ambassador provided the information to Hussein. However, this is such a court-based attack that it presupposes a specific motive other than a dangerous disturbance.

What is clear is that the court has become a sad misfortune in our age of anger: an institution that relied on the honesty and ethics of its members and staff when such values ​​were considered naive. It relied on judges and staff who are equally attached to the institution and to each other in a common faith.

But we live in an age of constitutional atheism, so it’s surprising that it took so long. For years, politicians, experts and academics have called for reckless political action against the court.

Many Democrats in Congress are committed to achieving political goals.By any means necessary“Including closing the suitcase or bowing the court. They have Democratic leaders Hammered In court and its members, Demander That the court adheres to or meets political demands Organizational disaster. Threats have increased Increasingly crude and reckless As politicians sought Overtake each other In your attacks in the age of anger, self-control is a deadly responsibility.

This message is repeated like drum beats: it justifies the purpose of the instrument.

recently, Roberts even came out with a public warning In the case of “inappropriate political influence” that affects the court. However, the day before the leak, the court itself Challenged the critics With another unanimous decision, they portrayed it in a disappointing and inefficient way. In an important case, the court ruled in a speech that Boston could not discriminate against a religious organization that wants to raise a flag outside its municipal building. He spoke with one voice in defense of the common values ​​of the Constitution.

Given the incessant contact of political leaders, we may be naive to think that an employee or secretary does not give in to the same logic of “the purpose that justifies the means.” Former judge Luis Brandis once warned that “our government … teaches the whole people by its example. If the government breaks the law, it will humiliate the law. Invites every human being to become a law for himself. “It invites anarchy.”

Since our leaders constantly despise the court and its traditions, it is not surprising that such traditions lose their meaning for some who work in the court itself. It did not happen overnight and it really can not be dismissed as the work of a rogue employee. It was a collective effort by those who despised our legal institutions and values. This is not a court crisis. It is a crisis of faith.

Jonathan Torley is Professor of Shapiro Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

Write a comment:

*

Your email address will not be published.

logo-footer