VIDEO: Justice Alito disses wokesters, warns religious liberty in danger

The second annual Notre Dame Religious Liberty Summit, a project of  Notre Dame Law School's Religious Liberty Initiative, wrapped up in Rome a week ago. One of the featured speakers was Samuel Alito, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. It was Justice Alito who wrote the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade.

In international legal circles, it has long been considered impudent and incompetent for jurists to comment on the decisions of courts of other countries. Following the release of the Dobbs decision, several foreign politicians and celebrities took it upon themselves to decry it. They included Boris Johnson, Emmanuel Macron, Justin Trudeau, and the Duchess of Sussex's husband Harry.

Justice Alito got a lot of laughs mocking them, saying he "had the honour this term of writing I think the only Supreme Court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a whole string of foreign leaders who felt perfectly fine commenting on American law."

But, he said, "I’m not going to talk about cases from other countries. All I'm going to say is that, ultimately if we're going to win the battle to protect religious freedom in an increasingly secular society we will need more than positive law." That was the focus of his speech, which you can watch here.

 

The key point of Justice Alito's speech was his warning that religious liberty is "under attack in many places, because it is dangerous to those who want to hold complete power." The threats to religious liberty in many countries of Asia, Africa and the Middle East is obvious, but, the jurist said, in the USA, Europe and other economically advanced countries, the challenge is the increasing turning away from religion.

"Polls show," he explained, "a significant increase in the percentage of the population that rejects religion or thinks it's just not all that important, and this has a very important impact on religious liberty, because it is hard to convince people that religious liberty is worth defending, if they don’t think that religion is a good thing that deserves protection."

Reflecting on Justice Alito's speech, we would do well to remember what President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said in a State of the Union address just eleven months before Pearl Harbor. In what is now known as his Four Freedoms speech, he proposed four fundamental freedoms that people "everywhere in the world" ought to enjoy:

Freedom of speech * Freedom of worship

Freedom from want * Freedom from fear

Those freedoms, or the first two at any rate, are no less under attack today than they were in 1941. The liberal elites tell us that we should sacrifice freedom of speech and freedom of worship for reasons of equity, diversity, and inclusion, so as to achieve freedom from want and freedom from fear. 

Make no mistake! What the "wokesters" wish to impose on us is not a world free from want and fear, but a new world order of the tyranny of the secular state, which is the antithesis of the "free world" for which millions died and are dying today.

Thank God!

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States Supreme Court finally issued its ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, upholding Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban, overturning Roe v. Wade, and delivering the pro-life cause its most transformative victory since Roe unleashed nationwide abortion-on-demand nearly half a century ago. 

Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the draft mischievously leaked by the pro-abortion lobby in early May, delivered the opinion of the Court, with Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joining. 

The ruling declares Roe "egregiously wrong from the start." Wrote Justice Alito, "It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives."

This is indeed a great victory for the pro-life movement. It is also a victory for states rights, and for President Trump and all the others who fought for the return of laws made in according with the Constitution -- the fundamental law of the land -- not according to the whims of judges choosing the political correctness (read: popularity) over justice.

More than that, the Dobbs decision comes as an answer to prayer. In the 49 years since Roe v. Wade, thousands of petitions have been signed, and billions -- literally billions -- of Rosaries and other prayers have been sent to Heaven, to protect innocent unborn babies from those who would wish to kill them.

Thanks be to God, and to the Blessed Mother of God, for hearing and answering our prayers. Te Deum laudamus!

 

What's happening with the SCOTUS Dobbs case leak?

"Be vewy vewy quiet. We're hunting leakers!... But we don't want to embarrass a Democwat appointee."

I'm pretty sure that's what the Hon. John Roberts, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, has told the Marshal of the Court. Because nothing but the sound of crickets has been heard from the latter since the beginning of the investigation into the leak of Justice Samuel Alito's draft of the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the ruling which seems set to overturn Roe v. Wade.

As Walt told you early yesterday, the source of the leak has been traced (according to social media) to the office of Justice Sonia Maria Sotomayor, the affirmative action appointee put on the shelf [bench, shurely. Ed.] by the Prez. (You didn't think President Brandon got the idea of appointing a woman of colour all by himself, did you?)  

If Justice Sotomayor didn't give the draft to the lickspittle press in person, she carelessly left it on her desk where her very woke clerk, Amit Jain, could see it and act accordingly. That's the story circulating in the Swamp, and far beyond.

And yet, and yet... as far as Ed. can see, not a word of this has been published in any of the major media, including Breitbart News. Isn't that strange?  You'd think BN (or Fox at least) would publish the aforementioned names, just to get a reaction.

Consider this story, told by Hunter S. Thompson, Doctor of Gonzo Journalism, in Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail `72. 

Legend has it that in one of his early election campaigns, Lyndon Baines Johnson was facing stiff opposition from a prominent Texan farmer.  He asked his aides what kind dirt would stick to his opponent, and was told the man was as scandal-free as any Texan politician could be.

"He's been happily married for 30 years, doesn't mess around with other women, doesn't smoke, doesn't drink, doesn't gamble. There's nothing bad we can say about him!"

"Tell ya what," LBJ supposedly replied. "Start a rumor that he's been known to have carnal knowledge with his sows."

"What?!", shot back one of his helpers. "You want to call the guy a pig-fucker?! Nobody's gonna believe that!"

"I know," replied Mr Johnson. "But let's make the sonovabitch deny it!"

Walt wonders if the Marshal of the Supreme Court, or an investigative reporter for WaPo, or anyone else, has asked Justic Sotomayor (or her aide) if there's any truth to the very strong rumor. Let's hear them deny it!

Further reading: "Alito 5 Must Stay the Course", by Patrick J. Buchanan, LewRockwell.com, 7/5/22.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization: Who sprung the leak?

Two days ago, in "Roe v. Wade to be overturned? What happens then?", Walt told you about the virtually unprecedent leak of a draft opinion in Case No. 19-1392 in the Supreme Court of the United States, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. If confirmed, the opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, would overrule Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision which made abortion on demand legal in the USA.

Chief Justice John Roberts said that the court's marshal has been directed to launch an investigation into the source of the leak. Walt suggested that Justice KBJ, the latest appointee to SCOTUS, be interviewed. It now appears that the leak was known as early as February, so the focus is now on an earlier diversity hire.

Justice Sonia Maria Sotomayor is an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. She was nominated by the Prez [Surprised? Ed.] and has been sitting on the SCOTUS bench since August of 2009. 

She is the third woman, first Latina and first Woman of Colour to hold the position. She is known to get her hair on fire about such liberal issues as abortion, the Dempanic, etc.

For example, Justice Sotomayor claimed in Jauary over 100,000 children are in "serious condition" with the Wuhan flu. Even WaPo was constrained to point out that while omicron does seem to affect children more than other variants of the coronavirus, the judge's figure was wrong by a factor of about 20. 

Imagine Justice Sotomayor's chagrin on learning that SCOTUS was set to take away women's "reproductive health rights" (read: rights to kill their unborn babies). According to the leaked draft, she and two other judges -- Stephen Breyer and (((Elena Kagan))) -- oppose the ruling.

Could Justice Sotomayor be the source of the leak? The ultimate source, perhaps, but not even an AAA (Affirmative Action Appointee) would risk impeachment from a cushy job which is hers for life. She would be careful to preserve deniability, and set someone else up to take the fall.

Step forward Amit Jain, Justice Sotomayor's clerk. According to a story in International Business Times, Mr Jain has been identified "on social media" as the prime leaker. He was born, raised and educated in India.  

Amit Jain was born and raised in India, and according to IBT was educated there. But according to another source, his LinkedIn account says he holds a B.A. in Political Science from Brown and a J.D. from Yale. 

While at Yale law school, Mr Jain made headlines by blasting the university for its support of the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. He was quoted in a 2017 Politico piece by (((Josh Gerstein))), the reporter who, along with Alexander Ward, wrote the article in which the leaked draft was published.

Whereas Justice Sotomayor could be impeached, if it could be proven that she instigated or conspired in the leak, Mr Jain (if it was his doing) can merely be fired, and perhaps fined or jailed for violating his oath of confidentiality. While still at law school, he was a member of the Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic, the Juvenile Justice Clinic, and the Housing Clinic, so on form he should have no trouble finding another job, perhaps as a political/legal advisor to the Democratic Party.