Essi Ne Fuego

Did Justices of the Supreme Court Lie?


Jackson Martin

To paraphrase a long-defunct political slogan: Essi ne fuego — they don’t give a damn.

Jackson Martin, Reporter

With the leaking of the first draft of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, a simple question has been poised. Aside from the legality of abortion under the right to privacy under the 14th Amendment, and apart from the moral and ethical relations of the subject, what remains is but a single idea: Did justices of the Supreme Court lie?

In more detail, did, during the process of confirmation, did multiple Supreme Court justices lie and philander our elected representatives in order to be placed on one of the cosiest and most insular jobs in the entire government of these United States?

Some background. The case in question, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, is, as per the Supreme Court, about the following questions:

  1. Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional. 
  2. Whether the validity of a pre-viability law that protects women’s health, the dignity of unborn children, and the integrity of the medical profession and society should be analyzed under Casey’s “undue burden” standard or Hellerstedt’s balancing of benefits and burdens. 
  3. Whether abortion providers have third-party standing to invalidate a law that protects women’s health from the dangers of late-term abortions.

Would the first question be answered as a simple “No,” in essence, Roe v. Wade would be relegated to a point of impotence. No longer would our federal government have the authority to require states to offer abortions, but instead, it would be the, until otherwise decided, the power of the states of the Union that allows, or disallows, a pregnant person to terminate their pregnancy.

With context, one may be poised to immediately rush to the defence of these arbiters of the law. After all, they are supposed to examine each case from only the perspective of the highest law of the land; our great Constitution.

Likewise, one may feel inclined to be unperturbed, for it was only the first draft of a decision that

“We hold that Roe and Corey must be overruled.”

is not scheduled to come out until the final day of this Supreme Court’s term.

Yet, in most regards, it does not matter. Speculation as to the inner workings of the most supreme halls of justice in these lands will only result in wasted time, and hurt feelings. For the sake of partial objectivity, focus only on what has been released, either intentionally or leaked, and what the justices themselves have said on the record.

To note, all of the following were stated under oath.

In the most recent confirmation held by the United States Senate for, Amy Coney Barrett, Justice. Barrett stated, “Roe v. Wade clearly held that the Constitution protected a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy.” It

“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start.”

should be noted that Ms. Barrett refused to state, one way or another, whether she personally believed Roe v. Wade had been wrongfully decided, claiming she was not going to discuss cases undergoing review by the Supreme Court.

According to Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his markedly hectic and fraught confirmation process, stated Roe v. Wade is  “…settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court.”

In regards to the author of the leaked document, Justice Samuel Alito, said during his confirmation hearing. “Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court”

“… the Fourteenth Amendment does not protect the right to abortion.”

For Justice Neil Gorsuch during his confirmation hearing, he stated, “The Supreme Court of the United States has held, in Roe v. Wade, that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Gorsuch later added “That’s the law of the land. I accept the law of the land.”

With these statements taken into consideration, one must wonder why each justice, either in part or in full, has decided in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade. After all, if precedent is indeed so important as to take up time and be brought up during a confirmation hearing, then should these justices not follow through with it, or do we need just one more look at Brown v. Board of Education?

One may easily and plainly view the doublespeak being used by these “good Christians,” who only want to protect the unborn, and if that were all there is, the press wouldn’t give one singular hoot. Instead, these holier than thou justices have taken it upon themselves to forget one of their God’s most sacred commandments: “Thou shall not lie.”

Yet, one may be able to assume that only select parts of the Bible should be followed. Why else would these justices not see the injustice in situations like that of Lot and his daughters? Even when eighty percent of Americans are in favor of abortion in cases of rape or incest, our five pillars of Judeo-Christian values stand by only what advances their own political agenda, and not justice at large.

“Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions…”

No court, whether it be as local as a county, or as high as our nation’s capital, should be packed with these machiavellian creatures who have disowned their own words. Perhaps, though, one should not be too hard on justices like Kavanaugh, who was assisted by the Federalist Society with the express intent of him joining the bench to overturn Roe v. Wade. It is so often easier to do so, to believe; to have faith in the due process of law.

But the American people have been deceived, and it is hard to maintain resolute faith in our systems of governance; of justice; of law. Instead of justices passionate about the law, our justices care about nothing except their own biases.

To paraphrase a long-defunct political slogan: Essi ne fuego — they don’t give a damn.

While a slippery slope of the rolling back of further rights, be they reproductive, civil, or otherwise, seems at this point in time, unlikely; the threat remains. When the future of a countless number of pregnant people is simply wiped away by a diktat of five justices who do not represent the mainstream views of Americans. Instead, those in a position past first and second, are now at the reigns of the American Dream, or rather, the American Night Terror. For when they don’t give a damn, nothing changes. Instead, we are mired down by tradition, regardless of whether it brings equity, liberty, and happiness to those it is inflicted upon.

Certainly, our justices knew what they were doing; they must’ve known from the start. They said goodbye to Roe the moment they had the votes, ignoring precedent. Why else would a Fascist slogan apply so well to them?