(FreedomBeacon.com)- Long after a draft of the majority decision was published in February, a Supreme Court majority in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade was still in agreement.
The draft, made public last week, does not represent the Supreme Court’s final ruling in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health case. Until the court publishes its ruling in the case, justices might recommend amendments to the majority opinion or flip their votes entirely.
Sources say that the claimed majority in favor of overturning Roe was still intact two weeks ago.
In December, Chief Justice John Roberts told his colleagues that he expected to write a ruling supporting Mississippi’s abortion restrictions, which are in dispute in Dobbs, and Roe to the degree practicable.
According to a source close to the more conservative members of the court, the majority of the court disagreed with the chief justice. It was more interested in an opinion that reversed precedents.
On May 2, the draft ruling was leaked, causing outrage across the political spectrum. Conservatives widely condemned the leak of the paper as unusual in recent history and a severe violation of confidence among the Supreme Court’s nine members.
Leftists protested the draft’s provisions, claiming that the repeal of Roe may herald the end of abortion availability in the United States. Notably, overturning Roe would return the issue of legal abortion access to the states, where regulations would vary greatly.
Protesters outside the homes of Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts over the weekend demanded that the Supreme Court preserve Roe v. Wade.
The pro-abortion organization Ruth Sent Us doxed the five conservative Supreme Court justices earlier this week, exposing their addresses online and calling for protests.
Last week, former Attorney General Bill Barr suggested that the Roberts may need to hire a special counsel to figure out who leaked the decision’s draft. Barr stated that the leaker might face charges of obstruction of justice.
Barr believes the Chief Justice would have had the option of appointing a special counsel, and perhaps he still does. Although not in the traditional criminal sense, the court can appoint a counsel, who may be a former US attorney or someone with criminal law expertise.
Barr said he was confident that the FBI or any other law enforcement agency would assist him.
One can admire Barr’s confidence that our DOJ would not have a hidden agenda and help rather than hinder.
Recent history has taught us otherwise.
