Breaking! Another SCOTUS Leak: Chief Justice Roberts Is Willing to Uphold Mississippi Law Banning Abortions at 15 Weeks But Did Not want to Overturn Roe v. Wade

The Gateway Pundit ^ | May 3, 2022 | Jim Hoft

[Macho MAGA Man]

Apparently, the Supreme Court leaker did not only leak secret case developments with Politico. CNN reportedly has more details on the Supreme Court’s discussion on the upcoming Roe v. Wade decision.

Chief Justice Roberts, who reportedly joined the liberal judges on the court in the upcoming decision, was trying to barter with the conservative judges in their negotiations. Roberts is reportedly willing to uphold the Mississippi law that would ban abortion at 15 weeks of pregnancy.

HotAir reported — With an apparent 5-3 lineup set to overturn Roe based on Justice Samuel Alito’s draft majority opinion in Dobbs, Chief Justice John Roberts has reportedly argued to retain Roe while dumping Casey as a compromise position.

[SuperLuminal]

Might be fake news...

However, very believable...

[vikingd00d]

>>If I received stolen goods, I would be charged and prosecuted along with the theif

And don’t forget the left’s argument for the suppression of Hunter Biden’s laptop was that it was “illegally obtained” and “hacked”. But they run with THIS leak because it serves the Marxist agenda.

[Ann Archy]

NOT a good Catholic, now is he? BLACKMAILED WUSS BAD CATHOLIC!

[ealgeone]

Hey, Roberts. The Law isn’t something to trade.

[patriotfury]

Roberts...

[Blood of Tyrants]

He was trying to split the baby. Almost literally.

[Blood of Tyrants]

He is the equivalent of Jumping Jim Jefferies. He’ll never be accepted by either party.

[Jane Long]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided.

---

The March for Life/LifeSite News protesters need to show up to DC/USSC steps, with signs saying ^^ THAT ^^.

[voicereason]

iI this is true no telling what else is also available to be leaked. This is a mess.

Isn't a ruling on firearms in NY or something also scheduled to come out?

[WASCWatch]

Just wait, Roberts will attempt to join the majority so he can write the opinion. Problem is if he can’t get at least two Justices to join his opinion, it would go away.

The Justices in the current majority will simply tell him, “NO”.

Look for Roberts to write a concurrence in part and a dissent in part. He will opine that he agrees with the majority except he would limit abortions at 15 weeks.

Alito and Thomas are now running the Court.

[Macho MAGA Man]

I thought that Alito would be writing the final order. That’s why his draft was leaked.

[WASCWatch]

Alito’s opinion joined by four others will be the decision of the Court. It is not Alito’s opinion, It’s the Opinion of the Court.

Roberts may write a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, but it will mean nothing. The five-justice opinion is the only thing that counts.

There may be a few concurring opinions that may go beyond the final published opinion, but concurring opinions are generally personal positions that may not agree totally with the published opinion. It’s can get rather complicated if you don’t know ow the Court works.

Don’t worry, Roe v. Wade is dead. It goes to the states.

[KC_Conspirator]

How the eff does one do that? Thats a Constitutional violation of equal protection. Ridiculous. If true, Roberts is a fool.

[Alberta's Child]

… which even the drafters of the bill said was not a tax and was never intended to be a tax, and their attorneys argued before the Court that it was not a tax …

1. I would have to see some evidence for this. Keep in mind that it is normal for attorneys to present two conflicting arguments before a Court in a case like this to give themselves protection and flexibility depending on two different outcomes on specific points of law.

2. How could the individual mandate NOT be a tax when the compliance is reported on each person’s Federal tax return, and the penalty is administered as a tax liability that is tracked and enforced by the IRS?

[Alberta's Child]

1. See Post #74 regarding the individual mandate as a “tax.”

2. I don’t know why so many Freepers insist on perpetuating this myth that ObamaCare didn’t originate in the House. Do the research to see that it was first introduced in the House as the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" (H.R. 3590) on September 17, 2009. The Senate simple gutted a bill that was drafted for other purposes and used it to craft its version of the ACA. It happens all the time in Congress.

[ought-six]

“How could the individual mandate NOT be a tax when the compliance is reported on each person’s Federal tax return, and the penalty is administered as a tax liability that is tracked and enforced by the IRS?”

Because the individual mandate was unconstitutional; it was a PENALTY, not a TAX. It is unconstitutional to TAX someone for NOT doing something. A person can be legally PENALIZED (such as pay a fine), but that penalty is not a tax (even though payment of which goes into the government or general coffers).

The 5-member majority in Sebelius (2012) did not want to have to rule on the constitutionality of ACA sans the individual mandate (severability), for fear the whole Act might fail. Thus, in 2018 the penalty was reduced to zero, pretty much making the whole issue moot.

[Alberta's Child]

PENALTY vs. TAX seems like nothing more than semantics in this context. Does the “penalty” fall within the authority of Congress to levy taxes under the Internal Revenue Code? I would say it is pretty obviously “Yes” — even though it was ludicrous to adopt it this way.

Where does it say that in the Constitution — especially when you consider that the ACA “penalty” was imposed as part of the Federal income tax?

[Alberta's Child]

It is unconstitutional to TAX someone for NOT doing something.

Sorry — in my previous post I meant where does it say THIS in the Constitution?

[ought-six]

“PENALTY vs. TAX seems like nothing more than semantics in this context.”

PENALTY is punishment; TAX is duty. Pretty basic.