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.

Pro-abort protesters descend on Justice Alito's home

The demonstrators...were a useless mob of ignorant, chicken-shit ego junkies whose only accomplishment was to embarrass the whole tradition of public protest. They were hopelessly disorganized, they had no real purpose in being there, and about half of them were so wasted on grass, wine, and downers that they couldn't say for sure [where they were].

Dr Hunter S. Thompson was writing (in Fear and Loating on the Campaign Trail `72) about leftist loonies massing in the streets of Miami Beach at the 1972 Reublican convention, not the mini-mob who gathered a couple of nights ago outside Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's house in Alexandria VA.

About 200 equally loony, but better-organized pro-abortion activists marched down the street, some using megaphones to lead the crowd in chants of  "You don't care if people die," and "My body, my choice," which sounded a bit off, since some of those yelling appeared to be men. (They could have been trans-gendered persons; you never know these days.)

This was part of a wave of public protests against a possible overturning of Roe v. Wade, the nearly 50-year-old ruling that imposed abortion on demand on all 50 states, as suggested by a leak of Justice Alito's draft of the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. 

Shouting out for "justice", the crowd threatened, "If we don't get it, burn it down!" and "When abortion rights are under attack, what do we do? Rise up, fight back!" The mostly peaceful protest was led by the anti-establishment group "ShutDownDC", which accused Justice Alito of wanting to "take away our rights. But our rights are fundamentally ours. We’re showing up to tell him in person."

After having demanded that SCOTUS "keep abortion safe and legal," the protesters assembled in front of Justice Alito's house to deliver prepared speeches. One speaker claimed that "forcing people to carry unwanted pregnancies will cause unnecessary death and lifelong injury, both physical and mental." Whose "unnecessary death" he was referring to wasn't made clear, but probably wasn't the innocent baby still in his mother's womb.

It wasn't only Justice Alito who was targeted. Earlier last week, the pro-abortion group Ruth Sent Us doxed the five conservative members of the Supreme Court, posting their streets on online and calling for protests. Over the weekend, protesters demonstrated outside of the private residences of Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts. Perhaps they hadn't heard that Chief Justice Roberts disagrees with the majority, and is writing the minority opinion.

Meanwhile, there is still no news of the investigation into the source of the leak of Justice Alito's draft opinion. Last week, former Attorney General Bill Barr said that the Roberts may need to appoint a special counsel to identify the culprit(s), who, he said, could be charged with obstruction of justice. 

"I think the Chief would have had the option, and perhaps he still will, to appoint a special counsel," said Mr Barr. "Not in the classical criminal sense, but the court can appoint a counsel and he could bring in a former US attorney or someone with a criminal law background. And I’m sure he would get the support he needed from the FBI or any other law enforcement agency."

Walt is available to take charge of the investigation for a nominal fee. It shouldn't take too much sleuthing, since the names of the two leading suspects are already known.

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.

UPDATED: Roe v. Wade to be overturned? What happens then?

Pierre Poilievre, front-run in the Conservative Party of Canada's third leadership election in six years, should be glad to be alive. As Walt told you in "The problem with Poilievre" (WWW 30/4/22), his mother was a 16-year-old, unwed, Irish-Canadian Catholic. Although Canada had allowed abortions (with restrictions and mandatory counselling first) since 1969, abortion on demand wasn't permissible until the Supreme Court of Canada decided R. v. Morgenthaler in 1988. Mr Poilievre was born in 1979.

I mention this because Breitbart News reports this morning that what purports to be a draft of an opinion in Case No. 19-1392 in the Supreme Court of the United States, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The opinion, possibly written by Justice Samuel Alioto, would overrule Roe v. Wade, which made abortion on demand legal in the USA.

If the document is genuine, leaking it would be an act of betrayal by one of the 45 people with access to such material, all of them sworn to reveal not a word of any discussions or opinions until an opinion has been signed by at least five justices. The leak of this draft would be one of the greatest scandals to ever hit America's highest court 

A key part of the possible draft reads: "It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives." It makes the case that where the Constitution is silent, the American people govern themselves through elections and elected leaders, not federal judges. 

It quotes the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who said, "The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand."

BN moots the possibility that draft opinion (if it is genuine) is an attempt to intimidate one or more justices to reverse their vote, or to ignite a liberal brushfire to pack the Supreme Court before Democrats lose control of Congress in November's mid-term elections.

The usual Democratic suspects, who all seem to have received copies of the leaked document overnight, issued statements of outrage, disgust, yada yada yada just before sunrise. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck "Charles" Schumer said SCOTUS seemed "poised to inflict the greatest restriction of rights in the past 50 years – not just on women but on all Americans."

Hellery Clinton, former secretary of state, former first lady, and former (and future?) contender for the presidensity, called the opinion "outrageous". (Apparently the adjective "unacceptable", meaning contrary to the liberal orthodoxy, has not been we widely adopted by the Democrats as by the Liberals of Canuckistan.)

Another Dumbocrat, New York Governor Kathy Hochul, said the draft opinion was a "disgraceful attack" on "women's right to choose", and said abortion would "always be safe and accessible" in the Empire State.

Ms Hochul was probably thinking about a recent report from the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion policy and research NGO, on the probable effects of the overthrow of Roe v. Wade. They estimated that the 26 states coloured in red(ish), mostly in the South and Midwest, would ban abortion, and people in those states would need to travel, in some cases for days, to reach a clinic in a state with liberal abortion laws, coloured in blue(ish).

There should be a boom, then, in abortion tourism, and Ms Hochul expects New York to benefit. Visit the Empire State Building and the Statue of Liberty and have an unwelcome appendage removed at the same time.

Ms Hochul has probably not thought about [or, being American, is unaware of... Ed.] the competition from clinics on the north side of the World's Longest Undefended (and how!) Border. In Vancouver and Toronto, which have huge south Asian communities, sex-selective abortion -- killing unwanted girl babies -- is not just legal but a going concern. How terrible for the USA if the draft opinion is confirmed. More business lost to those crazy-but-progressive Canucks! 

Further reading: "After Chanting Outside SCOTUS All Night, Crowd Of Worshippers Still Can't Get Moloch To Answer Them", Babylon Bee, 3/5/22. Is it satire or not? You be the judge. [Geddit? Ed.]

UPDATE ADDED @ 1330: Further reading: "Supreme Court confirms leaked opinion on Roe v. Wade is 'authentic' but not a 'final position'", LifeSite News, 3/5/22. "Pro-lifers will have to wait a bit longer to find out if Roe v. Wade has really been overturned." If you don't want to wait, sign the petition at the bottom of the LifeSite page.

It is said that SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts has ordered the Marshal of the Court to investigate how the virtually unprecedented leak occurred. Walt's suggestion: Ask the most recent appointee to the bench what she knows!