Editors of the National Review condemned the leakage of United States Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's draft opinion on the Dobbs v. Jackson Case and urged the need for the court to decide on it immediately to restore its credibility.
In an op-ed on Tuesday, the National Review editors revealed their mixed reactions of indignation and joy coming from the Supreme Court confirming that the leaked document is authentic. The editors explained that their joy is the result of years of championing the pro-life movement. While their indignation is due to the breach of the Supreme Court's secrecy of deliberations before the announcement of rulings. They stressed that the Court's decision-making would now become exposed to intense political pressure since that discipline of secrecy was lost.
Negative Effects Of The Supreme Court Leak
According to the editors, the discipline of secrecy enables the Supreme Court to maintain its independence from politics so that the justices could decide on cases without favor or fear of anyone in accordance with the law. They stressed that this vital constitutional role has been destroyed by the leakage. The leakage, more than anything, endangers the Court and its justices to violence, which is intolerable.
Christianity Daily reported previously that Chief Justice John Roberts confirmed in a statement released on Tuesday that the draft was indeed written by Alito and circulated among the justices in February. Roberts has ordered an investigation on the matter.
The 98-paged draft opinion reportedly represented four of the conservative justices' sentiments on Dobbs, which challenges the Mississippi Gestational Age Act that bans abortions from 15 weeks of pregnancy. With Alito are Justices Amy Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas, which make up a majority of the court.
Roberts, as per a CNN source, wanted to uphold the Mississippi law but not overturn Roe v. Wade unlike the five conservative justices. The leaked draft alluded, the NR Editors said, that Associate Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissent from the case being progressives.
"If the leaked opinion truly reflects the majority decision, that decision--as refined to this point--should be issued immediately as such. Publication would avoid the scandalous appearance that the Court's rulings could be swayed by leaks and political pressure. Justices who plan to dissent could still do so at their leisure," the National Review editors stressed.
"Our outrage stems from the apparent leak of an opinion," they added. "The leak is intolerable and cannot go unpunished. And Roe should not stay on the books a moment longer."
Putting Order In The Supreme Court
The National Review editors suggested that Congress and the executive branch should conduct a full-blown investigation on the leakage to hold those accountable for it.
In addition, the editors reiterated that should the Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade does not necessarily mean that abortion would also be outlawed. What it does mean, however, is that democratic self-determination would be restored in the country.
This means that the issue of abortion would not need to extensively rely on federal courts for a decision but instead be dependent on the states and Congress. This alludes to the reality of Dobbs v. Jackson, being a legal challenge to the constitutionality of states deciding on the issue of abortion and bringing back power to the people.