The Sanctity of the Independent Judiciary

"Roe was egregiously wrong from the start."

"The inescapable conclusion is that a right to an abortion is not deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions."

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito

"If this decision holds, it's really quite a radical decision. I hope there are not enough votes for it [in the Supreme Court]." 

"I believe that a woman's right to choose is fundamental. Roe has been the law of the land for almost fifty years, and basic fairness and the stability of our law demand that it not be overturned."

U.S. President Joe Biden 

"[The leaked document was] authentic [while not representing the] final position [of the court. The leak represented a] singular and egregious breach [of trust that will be investigated]."

"To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed. The work of the court will not be affected in any way."

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts

May 3rd 2022 Demonstration outside the Supreme Court  Photo: AP

It is truly the most societally polarizing of issues; nothing separates people as dramatically as disagreement on the basic issue of ending a pregnancy. There were once socially accepted solutions that pleased the conservative-minded and which were supported by a kind of social fiat; women had to carry pregnancies through to completion, give birth and surrender their babies for adoption. 

This was a patriarchal society's solution for the disposition of an unwanted child, a reflection of religion's part to play in its dictation that women are meant to bear children and must on no account seek to end a pregnancy before its full term and the birth of a child. The very fact that women were held to a male-dominated discipline that punished them for their biological gift of child bearing was taken for granted. Women may have chafed against the social ownership of their bodies and the biological function they were endowed with, but acceptance was general for they had no other options.

\Those who made attempts to destroy their pregnancies through forbidden means of interference with nature's blueprint would be punished if discovered, and many others paid the ultimate price of their defiance of religious and social ritual expectations of female subordination to church and hearth. And then came the social phenomena of Women's Liberation that roiled North America, and eventually the rest of the world.

When women stood up and demanded to be recognized as having authority over the disposition of their own bodies, not society at large. When demands that abortion rights be respected; that women's human rights entitled them to decide when and if they would carry a pregnancy, not society or circumstances. It was an epic struggle, the church damning the impertinence of women and governments loathe to surrender their authority by acquiescence.

Gradually, the issue was recognized as a right owed women and abortion rights was accepted, but for a minority of men and women who abhor the very idea of legalized abortion, convinced it was little different than state-authorized murder. Which made a compelling argument for the procedure to take place in the first semester before the foetus became or came close to viability; to survive outside the womb.

"It would mean every other decision relating to the notion of privacy is thrown into question. It goes far beyond the concerns of whether or not there is the right to choose." 

"It goes to other basic rights, all the decisions related to  your private life, who you marry, whether or not you decide to conceive a child. It's a fundamental shift in American jurisprudence."

"I'm not willing to leave that to the whims of local areas. It will fall on voters to elect pro-choice officials this November."

U.S. President Joe Birden

The division between those supporting a woman's right to choose whether she would carry a pregnancy to term, or decide to end the pregnancy prematurely has been fairly well accepted by society at large. At the same time the issue simmers beneath the surface of civil society, with ample numbers of groups dedicated to outlawing abortion and mandating once again the criminalization of abortion. Yet most recently 69 percent of Americans feel that abortion rights should not be overturned, opposed to 29 percent claiming the need to do so.

In the United States, the division between social Democrats and Republications has become strained with the emergence of partisanship over social mores widening dramatically in the past decade. Nowhere is that strain more evident than in the issue of legal abortion being overturned. The divisions so stark that the executive branch of government, now held by Democrats, sees fit to challenge the independence of the nation's Supreme Court, to which a previous administration had appointed hard-right candidates, forming a majority.

In a true liberal-democracy the state judiciary stands above politics, theoretically. And the executive branch does not interfere much less question the legal authority of the judicial branch. In the same token, justices are held to the concept of neutrality on issues they deal with, for it is justice that must prevail, not the conviction of personal emotions/opinions. Here also, the Supreme Court justices in the majority seek to rule on overturning a social issue supported by the majority of the people.

Demonstrators protest outside of the U.S. Supreme Court, Tuesday, May 3, 2022, in Washington, D.C. Jacquelyn Martin/AP

"Is a brave clerk [at the Supreme Court] taking this unprecedented step of leaking a draft opinion to warn the country whats coming, in a last ditch Hail Mary attempt to see if the public response might cause the court to reconsider?'

Brian Fallon, press secretary to Hillary Clinton in 2016

 

"As a former Supreme Court clerk, I can tell you there are very few people in the entire building who had access to the opinion."

Mike Lee, Republican Senator