Lies Being Told About Leaked SCOTUS Document

leaked SCOTUS decision

The media has been covering the leaked Alito opinion about Roe v. Wade. I am not an attorney, but it seems as if much of the media's lamenting about the supposed decision is either spin or lies. Allow me to give some examples:

• The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has voted to ban abortion. There are two lies about this. Firstly the leaked Alito document was written two months ago. The Court's decision could have changed ten times since then. Remember the Obamacare decision when Roberts changed his mind from constitutional to unconstitutional days before the opinion was released?

• The media and members of Congress are saying the ruling would ban abortion. Another lie! The Alito opinion says that Roe upended the separation of powers. It should be encoded by a legislature. It recognizes and, at times, uses the language of the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This means that it will be up to Congress or state governments to find the courage to encode abortion. Amendment number ten says or the people. Some believe that means congress also.

• The Government should stay out of people making decisions about their own bodies. If that is true, vaccine and mask mandates are unconstitutional. Also canceled should be the Smoke-Free Air Act which bans smoking in public places, and the Federal Uniform Drinking Age Act of 1984, which sets the minimum legal drinking age to 21 despite that 18 is considered an adult in other federal rules. Speaking of alcohol, why is distilling your own alcohol at home illegal in the United States? Isn't that the gov't telling us what we can put in our own bodies?

• Liberal vs. Conservative SCOTUS justices. Sorry, no such thing. There are originalists and non-originalists, and neither one has anything to do with politics.

Originalism is the idea that justices should interpret the Constitution with its original meaning. That includes the text of the constitution and what the framers or the people who wrote a particular amendment wrote about the document. If the original intent is to be changed, it only can be done as a constitutional amendment.

Non-originalist judges argue that the original meaning should play no role; instead, a morally correct set of values should comprise our Constitution and guide constitutional judicial review. A non-originalist gives substantial weight to judicial precedent or the consequences of alternative interpretations to sometimes favor a decision "wrong" on originalist terms because it promotes stability or, in some other way, promotes the public good.  Because no written Constitution can anticipate all the means that government might use to oppress people in the future, it is sometimes necessary for judges to fill in the gaps.

Under the non-originalist interpretation, the SCOTUS ignores the separation of powers and acts as a legislature instead of a judicial branch. Alito is an originalist. If you read the leaked document with that in mind, it will be clear.

I am sure there are other mistruths about the leak and the rationale for the Rowe decision that is being spewed by the media. But based on the liberal skew of the media and the newly named "ministry of information," it is doubtful that they will ever be reported.

leaked SCOTUS decision