It’s really no secret that the US Supreme Court has for decades been the global elite’s ace in the hole for controlling American policy. SCOTUS is rarely the body where our policies have been conceived and birthed but instead where those policies most threatening to the elites agenda have been aborted. The key to control of that nine-member, ideologically polarized club has been the “swing” voter on the court who serves as the “abortionist of last resort” for killing any policy that could slow or potentially derail the train to global Marxism.
Ironically, I was rudely awakened to this reality in the Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) partial birth child-killing case when swing-voter Sandra Day O’Connor was the decider. I was literally in the courtroom to watch the oral argument on that case when, from her own lips, I heard her describe partial birth child-killing as a “gruesome procedure.” I left DC that day believing we had won the case because the one person with the power to stop child-murder in the delivery process knew just how evil it really is. But then, shockingly, she sided with the liberals to ensure that gruesome procedure would continue unhindered.
I now believe that O’Connor was not truly the decider in Carhart – she was an agent of dark powers behind the court and her vote to protect the abortion industry was a part of the price she had to pay for her seat at the head table of the elites.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who had joined O’Connor’s Roe v. Wade-affirming plurality opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, was the swing voter who notoriously wrote the majority opinion in all four of the SCOTUS opinions establishing “gay” cultural supremacy over Christianity.
Importantly, Chief Justice John Roberts became the key swing voter on several ideologically-polarizing cases – until President Trump’s appointment of Amy Coney Barrett created a 6/3 conservative/liberal split.
This change in the balance has robbed Roberts of power, a fact that is prominently showcased in the growing scandal over the unprecedented leak of the draft opinion of the Dobbs v Jackson case that will finally overturn Roe v Wade unless the left can intimidate one of the conservatives into changing their vote. Roberts is simply impotent to protect Roe v Wade without cheating, and the whole world can see it.
For that reason my immediate gut-reaction guess as to who the leaker might be was Roberts himself. On reconsideration, that seems improbable. But in working through the arguments and counter-arguments in my mind, it struck me that the main reason that possibility is implausible is that Roberts is best known for his supposed protectiveness of the court’s reputation for political neutrality. That priority is supposedly what motivated Roberts to prevent all of the Trump-related election-fraud lawsuits from getting a hearing on the merits.
If Roberts truly is a zealot in the cause of the court’s political neutrality, the single best action he could take to prevent a recurrence of this appalling breach of security, is to deliberately and openly add his vote to the pro-life side of the case as a form of “sanction” against the anti-life radicals now waging a pressure campaign against the conservatives.
Now, as a practical matter, sanctions are punishments related to the conduct of the PARTIES to a case, not to individuals or groups in the larger society. In this case, however, as the votes stand, Robert’s vote would be irrelevant to the outcome, and he could argue that the parties are unaffected by his strategic use of it as a deterrent to outside meddling with the court’s process.
Of course, it is conceivable (but highly unlikely in my opinion) that the radicals could force a conservative justice to change their vote, making Robert’s vote the deciding one. That would be a just outcome in that circumstance, even if problematic regarding the rights of the parties.
It would be problematic because, technically, there are many reasons a justice might change their vote in the normal course of business, and there’s no way to prove the vote was changed by coercion. No justice would ever admit to changing their vote out of fear.
But practically speaking the public would never believe a changed vote in THIS case was due to anything but political pressure. And THAT perception of “victory through coercion” would virtually ensure that the “leak and threaten” tactic would be used again. Strike that. It would CERTAINLY ensure that the “leak and threaten” tactic would be used again.
Importantly, the Supreme Court accepts review of cases based not upon their concern for the particular parties but based upon the importance to the nation of the issues at stake and how the law should be applied to those issues to reach the most beneficial conclusion consistent with the legislative intent of the lawmakers. There is thus an implicit duty upon the court to weigh factors outside the four corners of the documents.
My conclusion in working through this analysis is that Justice Roberts can and should, legally and ethically cast his vote in this case as a strategic judicial statement against the attempted politicization of the court, akin to sanctioning one party for bad conduct by favoring the other party, but in reality sanctioning the social ATTITUDE of contempt for the dignity and authority of the court.
Update: I published a draft of this article (ending with the above paragraph) on Sunday morning on my own blog, intending to refine and submit it to WND on Monday. But by Sunday afternoon, Fox News was reporting that “Roberts is still attempting to persuade Coney Barrett and Kavanaugh to take a more incremental approach” (i.e. change their vote).
Then this morning a supporter sent me a link to former military intelligence officer Jeffrey Prather’s “pattern analysis” of how the leak and pre-coordinated media and street activism unfolded — essentially an outline of persuasive circumstantial evidence that the leaker was in fact Roberts, through surrogates. (The first ten minutes includes his summary). I now think my “hunch” about Roberts may have been a Word from the Lord.
My article still stands as an easy, workable solution to the SCOTUS crisis that could save the court from the worst scandal of its history, and perhaps even set the nation back on a healthy trajectory. But I now recognize it as probably just a pipe dream since Roberts appears to lack the character to defy Obama — or whatever other principality he serves in the cause of child-killing.