Supreme Court whistleblower alterted nation to crisis
Published 1:30 am Monday, May 30, 2022
First of all, Roe v. Wade didn’t endorse abortion, it passed responsibility for regulating abortions covered by a woman’s constitutional right to privacy to the states. The court’s new plan reveals what has been called “a Talibanesque attack on women’s rights.”
After the leak went public, Justice Clarence Thomas said, “Governmental institutions shouldn’t be bullied.” The source has been called a “leaker,” a bad apple, and his or her action “absolutely appalling.” But what if it is a governmental institution that is doing the bullying? What if a planned action of the Supreme Court would be more divisive and damaging to the nation than unauthorized exposure of it to the light of day? Would that change the narrative?
Thomas’ reaction joined with the politically polarized court’s effort to put a positive spin on its unpopular opposition to Roe v. Wade. The court’s home-court position as the nation’s final arbiter of law lets it push its partisan positions while elsewhere, public office holders caught similarly abusing the public’s trust would be charged with malfeasance.
The leak revealed a court conspiring to misuse its honored position in law to subvert existing law, a law of the land, and the will of a supermajority of citizens. The court’s conservatives had designed a combination anti-abortion law and Trojan horse to open the door to the divisive conservative Christian agenda. They were caught at it, thanks to a courageous whistleblower.
The so-called leaker, better described as “a whistleblower,” undoubtedly holds a law degree, and was aware that being identified would threaten their right to practice law. But what if that personal cost paled in comparison with what the plan would do to not only women’s reproductive rights, but lifestyles not approved by conservative Christians.
The whistleblower weighed personal risk against the cost of doing nothing and took the courageous course, revealing a greater respect for the law’s duty to protect basic freedoms than that held by the architects of the court’s draft of a plan to overturn Roe v Wade.
We have known better times: The Jan. 6 insurrection, a dysfunctional Congress, and now a court so politicized that it has made itself incapable of rendering decisions that ensure rights, freedom, and general welfare. We can do better. The world looks to us to elect and appoint better leaders.
Robert Graef
Mill Creek
