Whoever thought it was a bright idea to leak a highly sensitive, 60+ page draft of a Supreme Court opinion to the press clearly didn’t think through the consequences of their actions.
Then again, since liberals are accustomed to “smash and grab” robberies with effectively no consequence, it should come as no surprise that they thought the same rules applied in the Supreme Court, albeit with “smash and leak” instead.
Needless to say, such behavior has even ruffled McConnell’s feathers, who has come out with some rather harsh condemnations of an egregious violation of trust.
“This lawless action should be investigated and punished as fully as possible,” McConnell declared.
Fortunately, Chief Justice John Roberts has already called for an investigation, conducted via the Marshal of the Supreme Court, and one can only hope that such an investigation won’t turn into yet another dumpster fire buried by the press.
Sort of like Hunter Biden’s laptop(s) until they became, well, impossible to bury.
Which is suddenly when the media announced they had “authenticated” the laptops, though they were probably sitting on that information from Day 1.
Which is precisely why they blocked it.
Regardless, if McConnell’s words about the Supreme Court leaker were rather forthright, Senator Lindsey Graham was even more forthright during an appearance on “Rob Schmitt Tonight.”
“If [the leaker is] a liberal, it’s going to backfire,” Graham declared, “the judges are going to hold tight. This is going to blow up in your face. The midterms will not be decided on Roe v. Wade. They’re going to be decided on your personal safety, inflation, the issues that people care about the most.”
Whichever insider thought it was a good idea to leak is clearly divorced from economic realities, as Democrats, in all likelihood, will be destroyed in the midterms over their devastatingly bad economic policies.
And, for that matter, devastating obsession with destruction of the Constitution, as Graham explicitly indicates.
“The Supreme Court created a legal fiction called substantive due process to create a constitutional right that’s not in the constitution, to deny every state elected official the ability to comment on life, when it begins, and how you can terminate it,” Graham declared.
It would be nice if all the individuals ranting and raving over the Supreme Court draft took time to actually read what they claim to be so angry about.
After all, Graham is exactly right. Where, exactly, in the Constitution, or, for that matter, any primary document originating from the first 200 years of American history guarantees abortion as a “right?”
For the longest time, it was actually classified as a “choice,” by Democrats, but apparently it’s now been elevated to the status of “human rights.”
Even if abortion were (bizarrely) a “human right,” according to leftist logic, the Supreme Court ruling has nothing to do with women and everything to do with returning power back to the states.
Something an authoritarian-happy government hates, which is precisely why the White House has thrown a conniption fit over the draft, grossly misrepresenting its content just as the voter integrity legislation in Georgia was grossly misrepresented.
Graham, fortunately, reminded Americans about what the Supreme Court ruling really focused on, from a constitutional standpoint.
“If the court sets aside Roe v. Wade, it will return America to the position it was in 1973. For elected officials in each of the 50 states, [they] can decide the issues regarding life. Roe v. Wade was a constitutional overstep. I hope the court will roll it back,” Graham declared.
Notice how all the critics claiming the ruling is “unconstitutional” cannot point to a single element of the Constitution that has been explicitly violated by Alito’s draft.
If anything, the Constitution has been further affirmed via his arguments.
Which of course begs the question: Why are Democrats inventing rights that don’t even exist?
“In a democracy, the question for us all: Is it good to add constitutional rights that don’t exist in the Constitution because you prefer an outcome?” Graham questioned, before continuing on to declare “that wanting an outcome is not the justification to change the constitution; it’s not the justification to destroy the integrity of the court by leaking a memo. Wanting to get an election outcome is no justification.”
Too bad the Democrats felt just fine exploiting a pandemic in order to get the “outcome” they wanted in 2020.
Even more obvious considering their sinister court-packing efforts, especially if the judges sing to the leftist beat.
“When you get a handful of judges creating a constitutional right that doesn’t exist, that’s dangerous for us all,” Graham warned.
Seriously. Just consider how many other “laws” were passed in other regimes, which are now widely recognized as … egregious violations of human rights.
“If you like the outcome today, you may not like it tomorrow,” Graham intoned.
Isn’t that the truth …
Author: Jane Jones