Tucker: Point of the Supreme Court leak was to intimidate conservative justices
Fox News host gives his take on the Supreme Court document leak pointing to an end to Roe v. Wade on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight.'
If you listen carefully to the leaders of the Democratic Party — and we do — you would think America was built on a single court decision from 1973.
The very same people who consider the Bill of Rights a racist relic, quickly dismissed out of hand, those same people quickly become emotional as they describe the sublime beauty of Roe v. Wade. Yesterday, when a Democratic officeholder described the Roe decision as "sacred" and it's not an overstatement. For many Democrats, it is sacred. They will tell you and they mean it, that this country cannot continue. Without Roe, darkness will descend. America will revert to slavery and cannibalism and other varieties of Hobbesian misery so gruesome they're best left on described.
Between a bright new tomorrow and the hell of "The Handmaid's Tale," stands only Roe v. Wade. They're telling you that on channels right now across the spectrum. It's all pretty bewildering if you consider what Roe v. Wade actually is and that is true no matter what you think of abortion itself, whether you're strongly for legal abortion. The decision, as a decision, Roe v. Wade is a widely acknowledged joke. Moral questions aside, Roe is the most embarrassing court decision handed down in the last century.
ABORTION SURVIVOR REACTS TO LEAKED SUPREME COURT DECISION DRAFT THAT WOULD OVERRULE ROE V. WADE
A police officer patrols in front of of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, Oct. 12, 2021. (Emily Elconin/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Every part of it, from its invented constitutional justification to its meaningless parameters, mocks the idea of sober jurisprudence. The point of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution. Abortion is not mentioned or alluded to in the Constitution. Roe iss invented whole cloth, and if you don't believe it, reread it 49 years later. Go ahead and try it. It'll make you blush.
The Roe decision turns out to be a period piece from the early 70s, like sideburns or the AMC Gremlin. It's the triumph of faddish political trends over the law. The fact that the decision was in fact shoddy and shameful is hardly a partisan opinion. In fact, plenty of Democrats, including a lot of ardent pro-choicers, have acknowledged that over the years because it's true and that would include, by the way, Joe Biden.
Joe Biden has always supported legal abortion, but nine years after the Roe decision was handed down, he was still willing to admit it was indefensible as a legal decision. Pregnant women, Biden explained in 1982 as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, should not have "the sole right to say what should happen" to their unborn children, because, after all, no one creates children alone. It takes two people. That's obvious.
In fact, Biden concluded Roe had gone "too far." And of course, it had gone too far. That was obvious then. It's obvious now. Then, as now, many Americans believe that abortion is murder. Many other Americans consider abortion a prerequisite to happiness.
Now, those are unreconciled positions, but thankfully, in a democracy, we have a solution to quandaries like this, and it's called voting. If we don't like something in America, if we want to change it, we elect representatives to act on our behalf. If they do what we ask them to do, we reelect them. That's the reward. If they don't, we vote them out. That's the punishment. That's how our system works. For hundreds of years, we have used that system to resolve plenty of complex and thorny moral issues, not just abortion, many others, and it has worked well and that's why this has always been a stable country, because we get to rule ourselves.
OKLAHOMA GOVERNOR SIGNS TEXAS-STYLE ABORTION BAN INTO LAW
Roe v. Wade took that right away. In a single 1973 decision, the high court banned democracy from the debate over abortion. Justices prohibited the states from enacting abortion restrictions that their own citizens strongly preferred. That meant that going forward, Alabama would be required to have the same abortion laws as Massachusetts.
Now, some people loved this. Of course, people in Massachusetts loved it. People in Alabama hated it, but there was nothing anybody could do about it because the Supreme Court had cut voters out of the equation. And as a result of that, the issue of abortion was never resolved. Things are not resolved by fiat. They're only resolved by consent. That's the core idea in democracy, and it's true.
So as a result of this short-circuiting of democracy, demands from the left forced it. As a result of that, for nearly 50 years, this issue has festered. It has given Americans yet another reason to dislike each other. It has divided the country and now, finally, after 49 years, voters might have their rightful say over what to do about abortion, as is their right.
According to a piece last night in the blog Politico, the majority of justices on the Supreme Court are ready to overturn Roe. Justice Alito said so very clearly in a draft opinion you can read yourself because it's circulating on the internet.
Now, we shouldn't be able to read that draft opinion. It's not for public consumption. A final official decision on Roe is supposed to be months away and yet an unnamed liberal operative short-circuited this ancient process, which has worked well for hundreds of years. This person leaked the opinion and not by accident.
The point of leaking the opinion was to intimidate conservative justices into reversing course. Mob justice. Now, if you're shocked by that, you shouldn't be. Remember that it's not so different from what we saw this January when another unnamed liberal operative leaked the news that Justice Stephen Breyer was planning on retiring, and that news for Stephen Breyer to retire, which liberal operatives wanted him to do because he was a White man. So that was, in other words, another op, one of many we're now seeing in our country and as if to prove that within moments of this story breaking last night, a mob formed a flash mob at the Supreme Court. Watch.
WISCONSIN LAWMAKER CRITICIZED FOR CALLING WOMEN ‘BIRTHING BODIES’ IN TWEET ABOUT ABORTION
CROWD CHANTING: Hey, hey, ho, ho, fascist scum has got to go. Hey, hey, ho, ho, fascist scum has got to go. Hey, hey, ho, ho, fascist scum has got to go. Hey, hey, ho, ho fascist scum has got to go.
Well, the upside is they're not telling you "it's your body, your choice." Even these people couldn't pull that off with a straight face after forcing millions of Americans to inject an experimental drug against their will or be fired. Do you remember that? They can't claim you have bodily autonomy anymore because you demonstrably don't. Instead, they move to name-calling. You're a fascist if you disagree with them and they've been honing those talking points because they've been preparing for this moment for quite some time.
The Supreme Court, everyone knows, is currently debating the constitutionality of a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks. Now, during oral arguments in this case in December, Justice Alito noted that, "The fetus has an interest in having a life." Now, that's true. But when he said that, plans for retaliation began. No one wanted Sam Alito to vote the wrong way and now those plans are underway.
And it's no exaggeration to say that once this stuff gets going, you don't know where it winds up. People could get hurt because of this leak. You'd hate to think that could happen and you'd hate even more to think anyone wanted that to happen, but people do and here they are.
Aida Chavez works for The Nation. She's some kind of reporter. She just tweeted that it's, "good" that conservative justices and their families will "have their lives threatened." She's in favor of that. Over at Vox.com, Ian Millhiser added, "Seriously, shout out to whoever the hero was within the Supreme Court who said, 'F-it! let's burn this place down.'" Oh, we don't get what we want, we'll just burn it down. Government by tantrum. You've seen that before.
Brian Fallon, the executive director of the thoroughly thuggish activist group Demand Justice (or Else), which is implied, said this "Is a brave clerk taking this unprecedented step of leaking a draft opinion to warn the country what's coming in a last-ditch Hail Mary to see if the public response might cause the court to reconsider?"
Oh, the public response, like do what we want or will hurt you. Again, we've seen that before. Let's stop pretending. These are threats of violence, obviously. The CEO of Planned Parenthood is now calling on activists to storm state capitol buildings. Watch this.
ALEXIS MCGILL JOHNSON: We know that this decision is going to enrage people. We know. We've already seen what's happened when people find out that, when they found out what was happening in Texas, they started filling state houses. In Florida, they started filling state houses and other places because they know that the fight right now is on the ground and in these states and so we are going to continue to capture that rage.
DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS ACROSS 19 STATES PUSH WANT TO OFFER TRANS YOUTH LEGAL REFUGE
Oh, we're going to capture that rage? "People get angry, and you wouldn't like us when we're angry." What? Didn't we have a system? Didn't we have democratic norms we were supposed to observe? If you don't like something, isn't there a process for resolving that? Don't you elect people to see your will put into law? Not anymore. You just storm capitals.
"But wait a second, says the attuned television viewer, "Isn't storming capitals to thwart democracy an insurrection?" Oh, no, only under certain circumstances. Not when the abortion people do it, not when they announced their plans on CNN. When that happens, that's a good thing.
Already the leaders of the Democratic Party are vowing to use this draft decision as a pretext to eliminate the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court. Now, here's the best part: All of this is happening in the name of democracy, so that you will never have a chance to vote on something that matters to you like abortion. And by the way, it matters to you whether you're for it or against it, but so that you won't have a chance to ever vote on something like that, they're going to for democracy.
Here's a former U.S. attorney explaining to the conservative justices on the Supreme Court are, in fact, insurrectionists.
PREET BHARARA: I think it's not too great a stretch to say there is some connection between an effort to overturn an election and an effort to overturn Roe and it's this, as I've been thinking about it. There is a segment of the ideological spectrum now who thinks it has certain kinds of powers and wants to engage in radical efforts to overturn things that they don't like. There's no more incrementalism. There's no more compromise. You don't like the results of an election, you storm the Capitol and you talk about hanging the vice president of the United States and you get the presidency back.
Yeah, it's like overturning an election. I mean, you listen to something like that and there are like nine points you could make in response. Then you have to ask: either the person saying that is so stupid that he doesn't understand what he's saying or he's willing to say absolutely anything to stop the other side and that's, of course, what you're watching. These people aren't stupid. They're just dishonest.
Now, the thread, the consistent note in all of these clips is that none of the people yammering about this draft opinion written by Sam Alito have actually read it and you know that because you don't even attempt to respond to the legal arguments, because legal arguments are immaterial, just as they were when the seven justices in 1973 produced Roe v. Wade. They didn't even consider really what the Constitution had to say about it because they didn't care. That's why it's an embarrassing decision.
Instead of assessing what Alito wrote, they just accuse him of terrorism. Overturning precedent is an act of insurrection, says the former federal prosecutor on TV. Really? So, any Supreme Court decision must remain in place forever or else you're committing an act of insurrection.
Hmm, legal scholars out there, are there any Supreme Court decisions through the ages that were overturned and that we were happy were overturned? Yeah, probably quite a few. Plessy v. Ferguson, anyone? But it doesn't matter. The legal experts are screaming about fascism. They're telling you it's only a matter of time before the Supreme Court brings back segregation, if not slavery. Watch.
JOY BEHAR: This is just the beginning. Next, they'll go after gay marriage and maybe, maybe the Board- What is it? Brown v. Board of Education. They already eroded our voting rights a little bit so I see some, I see fascism down the line here.
A crowd of people gather outside the Supreme Court, Monday night, May 2, 2022 in Washington following reports of a leaked draft opinion by the court overturning Roe v. Wade. (AP Photo/Anna Johnson)
"I see fascism down the line." You know, it almost detracts from us to play you something like that, but that show is real ratings. People listen to someone like that who literally couldn't navigate a checkout scanner, telling you what the Supreme Court draft opinion might mean, despite the fact she's totally capable of reading it or anything else longer than a tweet. Whatever. She clearly didn't read what Alito wrote.
Alito did, actually, by the way, anticipate this argument that if you do this, all kinds of other terrible things are going to happen. He said it right out loud. Here's what he wrote for all the people who will never read it and we're quoting: "What is distinctive about abortion," wrote Alito, "is its effect on what Roe termed potential life." Abortion is, what he said, is a "unique" issue. "To ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right."
Oh, so, they're not trying to bring back slavery or legalize cannibalism or make it illegal for you to vote. What they're trying to do is allow you to vote on abortion. That's how dishonest these people are. If Roe v Wade goes away, you get to vote on abortion, and if you're a pro-lifer, that's good news. If you're a pro-choice activist, that's good news. Why wouldn't you want your democracy to function? You don't want to vote on it? You want some elderly person to tell you what to do? No, it's a democracy. You vote.
But no one on television is saying that. Instead, they're demagoguing. In their hysteria, in fact, they're nullifying all the general rules they've just concocted, which is gratifying to watch. They don't realize it, but it's fun to see it. At CNN, for example, which spent all last year telling you that men can get pregnant. "Oh, yes, they can." Suddenly they rediscovered the meaning of the word "woman."
DEMOCRATS ATTACK SUPREME COURT'S LEGITIMACY AFTER LEAK SUGGESTS ROE V. WADE TO BE OVERTURNED
LAURA COATES, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Forgive me, I seem to be losing my voice, so you'll hear me a little bit differently, but it seems to be in line with how women are losing their rights in this country. This opinion can be, if true, narrowed down and defined quite simply: women are not viewed as equal to men.
"Women are losing their rights." Really? What percentage of college students at elite colleges are women? What percentage of first hires at big companies are women? "Yeah, Women are losing their rights." How many elections are determined by women? Hmm, let's see, all of them. Liars, stupid people
And in fact, just to get back to the Constitution, which is the core question here, abortion does not appear there, nor has there ever been a right to abortion in this country.
Now, if that bothers you, if you want a right to abortion, you can vote for it in the Congress. You could pass a constitutional amendment. If you actually supported democracy, that's what you would do, or call for your representatives to do, but so far, nobody has and in fact, we're moving in the other direction. Today, Joe Biden announced that democracy has been suspended.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
President Biden speaks during the 2022 National and State Teachers of the Year event in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, April 27, 2022. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
PRESIDENT BIDEN: One of the reasons why I voted against a number of the members, they refuse to acknowledge that there is a 9th Amendment. They refuse to acknowledge the right to privacy. I mean, there's so many fundamental rights that are affected by that and I'm not prepared to leave that to the whims and the public at the moment.
I can't remember the word, but we're going to piece together the sentence, and we're quoting "the whims of the public" no longer matter. Sorry, pal. They do matter. It's a democracy. Our whims matter; so do our beliefs. We get to vote on this stuff because that's our system. You're just passing through. You'll be gone soon.
The rest of us get to decide how we're governed because we're a self-governing country. We're free people. Sorry.
Best of Opinion
Get the recap of top opinion commentary and original content throughout the week.
By entering your email and clicking the Subscribe button, you agree to the Fox News Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, and agree to receive content and promotional communications from Fox News. You understand that you can opt-out at any time.