Politico reporter on importance of SCOTUS draft opinion language

Josh Gerstein, the Politico reporter who co-wrote the story on what they call a draft of a majority opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito that would strike down Roe v. Wade, explains to CNN's John Berman why the language in the draft is important. #CNN #News


  1. It needs to be pointed out that the decision will also affect men in a big way. Whether or not they are prepared to be a father, they will be financially responsible for that unwanted child.

    1. @Marco M , I have seen no data that says 70% of the people disagree with this supposed court decision. Cite your source. Even if you can cite a source it would still ignore the fact that the US has 50 States, not just the east and west coasts and Illinois.
      Every legal right we have as Americans comes from the Constitution. Since many of the rights we take for granted aren’t specifically addressed by the Constitution, then where do they come from? Abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution. The 10th Amendment of the Constitution says that anything not specifically addressed by the Constitution is left up to the States to decide. States Rights. The right of States to oversee their own elections, make gun laws, and a thousand other things….including abortion. If this court decision is true, all it does is place the issue of abortion back into the hands of the states where it belongs. “We The People” can then democratically elect representatives who create legislation that reflects our beliefs and morality. That’s democracy, you just don’t like it because you’re a little fascist leftist.
      Abortion will always be legal in blue states, because the majority of the people who live in blue states vote for pro-choice representatives. In Red States the majority of the people vote for pro-life representatives. This is democracy. Voters in blue states don’t get to tell voters in red states what to do, got it?
      No-one will be forced by law to give birth to an unwanted child. If they live in a Red State and want an abortion they will always be free to go to a blue state and have an abortion. Don’t let the door hit them in the sss.

  2. It may not be guaranteed by the constitution, but it’s also not forbidden by the constitution, so in fact the constitution has nothing to do with it. Question, is there currently a challenge before the SC with regards to this matter, or is this the SC acting on their own for obvious political reasons?

    1. Abortion rights are found in the 14th amendment, the ‘due process’ clause. This has been understood to mean that there are areas of personal freedom which are off limits from interference from government action, a doctrine known as substantive due process. Roe is an extension of Griswald v. Connecticut where the court held that the use of birth control was a personal, private choice that cannot be restricted by law. The Supreme Court receives hundreds of requests annually to review decisions of the courts below. They select about a hundred cases to review. One state (don’t know which, sorry) has passed legislation that violates Roe. If the legislation is deemed consistent with the constitution Roe is overturned. This will be the first time in the history of American law that individual rights are taken away. Rights and freedoms have been continually expanded over the last 150 years.

    2. @Sam Man This is not a division of powers case. It’s about the rights of individuals under the 14th amendment.

  3. No parental leave
    No childcare help
    No universal healthcare
    We love the fetus, but once you are born you are on your own.

    1. Why don’t u Talk to congress. You know the people who get payed to cover those topics not SCOTUS.

    2. @rise like lions after slumber.. the like is from me.
      I thank God they weren’t born here. Blessings of a lifetime..hugs and kisses to your twins.
      Keep “keeping” a good eye on the US of A.
      The whole world really needs too.

    1. @Deeds Generally no, but nobody is forcing you to get vaccinated. You are free to not get vaccinated – and not work for the federal government.
      Plus, you were claiming that these mandates are unconstitutional. Can you point me to a constitutional scholar who supports this claim?

  4. The most important part of the draft is “…not enumerated in the Constitution…” This leaves a huge swath of Federal law and regulation on the chopping block !

    1. The bizarre idea that a corporation should be treated as a person is not in the Constitution. End this fallacy.

  5. This leak was on purpose to gage reaction to the final nail in the process.

    These judges are what the finest Dark Money can buy!

    1. @John Smith Bias has nothing to do with it but you just outed yourself as a right winger. The Whistleblower Law does not make any exception for the SC. The only ones undermining the legitimacy of the Supreme court are the 4 justices that perjured themselves to get on the SC. It does not matter what their rule is, the law supersedes the rule. If you want to impose SC rules then why aren’t you demanding thatJustice Thomas be removed since he blatantly violated a more serious rule which is that you are suppose to recuse yourself in cases where there is a conflict of interest? Thomas was the only decenter on a case that involved his deluded conspiracy nut and lying wife? Amy Barrett should have also recused herself in this case since her strong religious convictions puts her in direct conflict to this case.Β 

      By the way, the 4th Amendment does guarantee our right to privacy. Banning abortion violates that.

      There is a right to privacy and a right that the government stay our of doctor/patient affairs. I do vote for politicians that support freedom and will never vote for anyone that support tyranny and fascism.

    2. @John Smith But it does and that is in the the 4th Amendment and there are laws in every state that says you can’t force anyone to donate or use any part of your body against your will. Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted fetus violates those laws.

      The nature of how this draft reads it is violating everything the SC stands for. Precedent is important and based on the ruling in that draft they are trashing precedent based on their own beliefs which are not founded in any credible science. This will be the 2nd bad ruling they made, the first when they allowed Texas to defer its responsibility by giving it to vigilantes which was ruled and unconstitutional by another SC case. They are violating precedent when some of them sworn under oath that Roe v Wade was precedent law. Now they did a 180. They lied under oath.

      Clearly you are the one who does not know what the constitution says or what the laws are. The law on Whistleblowers was talked about back with trump first impeachment. So if you are living in the US you should have known that unless you have your head buried some place or only watch Fox.propaganda. What is also clear is that you’ve never read the US Constitution. Perhaps you are living in Russia but then again they might know more about the US Constitution than you.

      There several things that can be done to deal with these radical justices. We will see which works best.

  6. The U.S. Constitution’s 1st Amendment explicitly gives the right of all citizens protection from the state imposing their religious beliefs on others, which is EXACTLY what far right Christian extremists have been trying to do. I’m an active Christian who believes medical abortion prescriptions should be easily obtained for the first 10-weeks of pregnancy, as they’re designed to do, and any abortion after that time, which makes up ~3% of abortions, should only be performed due to rape, incest or if the mother’s health, mental or physical, is in jeopardy, which pretty much accounts to nearly 100% of abortions today. Government should STAY OUT of the abortion argument and let women, scientists and medical professionals handle it.

    1. @Burma Jones you are proving my point you realize. Law strives for a more moral outcome for society over time. Religion is not needed.

    2. @Nexus Six Am I? You’re arguing conflicting points. 100s of years of common law (unfounded claim, abortion has been practiced for millennia) support codification. Also, codification should be overthrown by moral law (unfounded claim, this is a court of law not morality). You’re so convinced you’re right that you’re saying anything to support your belief.

    3. @Helene Flamand In other words, you’re not a practicing Catholic, because practicing Catholics tell others what to do.

    4. @Nexus Six What you’re trying to say but are not intelligent enough to express it is that everybody has a moral sense regardless of religion. Granted.

    5. @Brandespada In other word, you have no idea what you’re talking about. You may know some Catholics who do. That doesn’t mean they should.

    1. Given there’s no exemption for age, rape and incest, yes, you are likely correct.

  7. The Constitution makes no reference to cars and AK47s either…and yet… But you know what ot does reference? A separation of church and state. This SCOTUS decision is religiously motivated. It also doesn’t say how many justices should be on the court

    1. @John Smith Wrong John. Separation of church and state is the principle that government must maintain an attitude of neutrality toward religion. And the first amendment allows us the freedom to practice the religion (or none) that we choose AND PREVENTS GOVERNMENT FROM RECOGNIZING OR FAVORING ANY ONE RELIGION. It is not because of or limited to education. You should try reading the Constitution. Its amazing how much of it you people get wrong

    1. 1 1we R Fuk what you saying it here 😠 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCia8JwD-qU

      Felicidades, es un buen ejemplo. 😠
      5:25 Se deja ver que hay muy buenos resultados 😠😠

      Saludos desde la Cd.. de world πŸŒΉπŸ˜‰πŸ’–
      los mortales abian apreciado tan hermosa mujer

  8. Pretty fucked up we have a government where 9 people have the right to tell 350 million how to live.

    1. 1 Richard rodriguez Fuk what you saying it here 😠 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCia8JwD-qU

      Felicidades, es un buen ejemplo. 😠
      5:25 Se deja ver que hay muy buenos resultados 😠😠

      Saludos desde la Cd.. de world πŸŒΉπŸ˜‰πŸ’–
      los mortales abian apreciado tan hermosa mujer

  9. Alito’s statement is wholly typical of the “fundamentalist” approach to the Constitution. It allows conservatives the cover of “…not enumerated in the Constitution…”. Why or how could it be? I believe that the men who wrote the Constitution understood that time does not stand still. That’s why we have an amendment process. But a Constitutional Fundamentalist views the Constitution as a “dead” document with no need to grow or amend to changing times. Of course conservatives love this brand of thinking because it inherently leads to conservative thinking and decisions. This track the court appears on could/will put in jeopardy other things “…not enumerated in the Constitution…” like gay rights, gay marriage, inter-racial marriage, equality of the sexes et al. They’ve turned the “Handmaiden’s Tale” into a playbook.

    1. @Nexus Six But there have been cases that have gone up to SCOTUS where they ruled in apparent contradiction to past rulings of the court. No? Sometime, SCOTUS rules a new way (like now). I believe the early court ruled two different ways on imminent domain. Within 15 years of each other.

    2. @Nexus Six Only a few years ago, both Kavanaugh and Barrett promised that they wouldn’t overturn Roe v. Wade because it was long-standing precedent. Both of which would vote to overturn it according to the leaked draft. So, what a Justice says now holds little weight in the future as we have seen. Why should we believe Alito when he writes _now_ that gay rights, interracial marriage etc. isn’t going to change? What about in two years time?

    3. @Johan Nilsson they said it was precedent which it is. Not that they would never overturn it.

  10. Good thing this was leaked early as it gives women plenty of time to organize to get out the vote to put an end to the GQP in congress and state governments.

    1. 1 ronkirk50 Fuk what you saying it here 😠 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCia8JwD-qU

      Felicidades, es un buen ejemplo. 😠
      5:25 Se deja ver que hay muy buenos resultados 😠😠

      Saludos desde la Cd.. de world πŸŒΉπŸ˜‰πŸ’–
      los mortales abian apreciado tan hermosa mujer

  11. The gop has 50% religious zealout right wingers and they are able to focus almost entirely on these issues. The gop is willing to do ANYTHING for power and control. The democrats are weak with littler focus and try to pander to a HUGE audience with many interests and most importantly the democrats are weak in conviction. We as democrats are always sitting around waiting for the gop to “play by the rules” while the gop could care less about rules or the well being of our society. All that matters to the gop is POWER and CONTROL and they are willing to do ANYTHING to have power. Hence the overturning of elections. attacking the capital, creating voter suppression laws etc etc. They won we lost. Elections matter and this is the direct result of tRump putting 3 right wing judges on the SCOTUS.

    1. 1 Brandon Palmer Fuk what you saying it here 😠 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCia8JwD-qU

      Felicidades, es un buen ejemplo. 😠
      5:25 Se deja ver que hay muy buenos resultados 😠😠

      Saludos desde la Cd.. de world πŸŒΉπŸ˜‰πŸ’–
      los mortales abian apreciado tan hermosa mujer

  12. I just want to give a big told you so to all the “progressive” young women of child bearing age who thought that Hillary Clinton or some other moderate Democrat was beneath voting for. You deserve this.

  13. Congratulations Justice Alito. You’ve just authored a draft opinion which, if issued, will challenge Dred Scott v. John Sandford as the worst decision ever issued by the U.S. Supreme Court. However, just as Scott v. Sandford was later overturned by the 13th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Judge Alito’s decision, if issued, will almost certainly be legislatively overruled.

    1. I seriously doubt it; once it’s sent back to the states, Congress will be too busy with their campaign to bother with legislation. For irony sake; Roe is being overturned because the 14th amendment doesn’t even mention abortion.

    2. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski have already drafted that legislation. In any case, Justice Alito’s place in history will be defined by this decision.

  14. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, the use of clothes hangers will go on the rise. Let’s be real.

  15. The Ninth Amendment states, β€œThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This means that the rights of US citizens are not limited by those listed in the Constitution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.