I think I need to talk about several things with the recent Supreme Court leak. Most articles I see on this topic are obviously biased in their opinion. I want to try to cover this from hopefully a less biased stance.
First, lets talk about the actual event, an unauthorized leak of data. Some people talk like the leaker is a hero, warning of a potential disaster from the liberal perspective. Others are calling him a villain ostensibly for violating his non disclosure agreement, but actually because they see the political damage that the leak is causing. In other words, most people look at the leaker strictly from their political point of view. I want to look at it from a government professional’s point of view.
Having worked for the government for over 3 decades, I know that anyone who gets access to government internal information has to sign a binding non-disclosure agreement. Part of their job becomes protecting the information that they are given access to. It is not an agreement that you will protect the information you agree with. It is an agreement that you will protect all information given to you. Most companies also require non disclosure agreements, so that their business information is not shared with competitors. And I think it is not a far stretch to imagine that not disclosing case information is standard procedure in legal matters.
So no matter what your opinion of the political effect of the leak, this person should not only not be allowed to work at the Supreme Court anymore, he or she should be disbarred for this obvious lack of ethics. Would you trust your lawyer if you knew he would leak the information you tell him? I think not. It does not matter what the political effect of the leak is. When someone violates the trust of their office, that violation should cause them to lose that office.
Next, lets talk about the political effect of this leak. First off, this was a preliminary discussion between the justices, and does not necessarily represent the actual verdict or the actual final writing of the opinion. In fact, I expect that the leaker knew full well that this would be refined at least to be less politically explosive, and so they took this version knowing it would make a big political impact that would be missed with the actual decision. The idea, of course, was to show that the Supreme Court is becoming too right leaning, to spur the voters on the left to work hard to keep the current narrow margin in the Senate, and to keep their majority in the house so they can put liberal judges on the court. If not, why leak this copy. If the final opinion was expected to read the same, why not just let it be, and then the timing would be better for the midterm elections.
Which brings us to the real problem. The legislature has become so inoperative that the best way they see to impact our laws is to put justices on the court that will change the law. It seems that the Supreme Court does more of the law making than the legislature that is tasked with establishing those laws. And that is precisely the problem. The court system was never meant to be based on politics. The opinions of Supreme Court justices should never be the reason they are nominated or approved to the court. It should be their understanding of the law, and their willingness to abide by the rule of law, and not to attempt to change the law to match their opinions. Justices should not be divided between liberal and conservative. And the legislature should get back in the business of making laws, not packing a court so they can make the laws for them. We must get back to a balanced three branch system, or our country is likely to split apart soon.
Ok, now I will spend a minute on the less important topic, Roe v Wade. Abortion is a topic that is blown way out of proportion, and as such gets a lot more attention than it deserves. Attention that makes it more of a problem than it should be. The more one side pushes, the other side pushes just as hard. The current anti-abortion push probably causes more abortions to happen than would happen without that push. Striking down Roe v Wade will not mean an end to abortion. It might make them illegal and more dangerous to get, but they will still happen.
Now, I would describe myself as Pro Life and Pro Choice. I believe that life is not something to be taken away casually. Whether that be the life of a criminal, a sick or elderly person, a baby in the womb, or someone’s spouse, parent or child. I am also Pro Choice. I believe that a woman should have the right to make the choice of what happens to her own body. Sexual relations must be consensual. But once that consent has been made, then the woman has to take responsibility for the choices she has made, as does the man. But now it no longer is just the woman’s body. Nobody is asking the baby for consent to the abortion procedure. And if they were, I am pretty sure the baby would not consent.
I have already stated above that the courts, or for that matter the legislature, can not get rid of abortion. Nor is the current anti-abortion movement doing anything to reduce abortions. If anything, it is probably increasing them. So what can help. First off, sex education needs to tell the scientific truth, not the indoctrination that many are pushing. We must emphasize the truth that the best form of birth control is saying no. That method has very few incidents where it failed. Mary giving birth to Jesus is probably the only commonly believed exception. All other methods of birth control will only reduce the risk of pregnancy, not eliminate it entirely. We must teach the truth that not saying no means saying yes to a risk of pregnancy. Second, we must find a way to make having the baby at least as acceptable as abortion. And most important, the Pro Life movement needs to separate from the political movement that abuses Pro Lifers for political gain.