Share This Episode
Outlaw Lawyer Josh Whitaker & Joe Hamer Logo

US Supreme Court Draft On Landmark Abortion Case Leaked! Outlaw Lawyer will discuss.

Outlaw Lawyer / Josh Whitaker & Joe Hamer
The Truth Network Radio
May 6, 2022 5:00 pm

US Supreme Court Draft On Landmark Abortion Case Leaked! Outlaw Lawyer will discuss.

Outlaw Lawyer / Josh Whitaker & Joe Hamer

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 44 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.


May 6, 2022 5:00 pm

4 attorneys on the set this week of The Outlaw Lawyer. Hosts Josh Whitaker & Joe Hamer, managing partners of Whitaker and Hamer, welcome fellow attorneys Cassandra Nicholas, and Taylor Scruggs-Smith. The US Supreme Court is debating Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization and a draft has been leaked! The outlaw Lawyer discusses the ramifications.

If you have your own legal situation and need answers call

Whitaker and Hamer 800-659-1186. Leave your contact information and what the call is about and an attorney with Whitaker and Hamer will be in touch.

Legal, Law, Lawyer, Court, Lawsuit, 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
What's Right What's Left
Pastor Ernie Sanders
Line of Fire
Dr. Michael Brown
The Steve Noble Show
Steve Noble
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Core Christianity
Adriel Sanchez and Bill Maier
Focus on the Family
Jim Daly

This week on the ball you Josh and Joe are joined by Whitaker and Hamer attorneys Cassandra Nicholas and Taylor Scruggs Smith for a very special episode of draft US Supreme Court opinion in the landmark abortion case, Dobbs Jackson women's health organization has been leaked in everybody and I mean everybody's talking about, including the outlaw lawyer is coming up next. Now, the outlaw lawyer more impacted with consumer advocate.

We also have Josh Whitaker and humor managing partners at Whitaker and humor law firm again press attorneys here in North Carolina in managing partners again at the firm have offices in Raleigh Garner Clayton Goldsboro Fuquay Arena and Gastonia. We have special guests on set with us today Josh or what you take away.

So today we have a topic top.

They were talking about abortion is not what we were originally in a talk about this week but yesterday just two days ago were in the studio Wednesday morning so Monday was a big leak.

A big new story WAP so the case Texas law and Dodds versus Jackson women's health was already argued in front of Supreme Court and there will be a decision issued by the Supreme Court within the next couple of months. However, one at the Supreme Court leaked the full draft opinion so that was as far as I know, according to media reports that something that's never happened before the Supreme Court is a very small institution when compared to Congress and the executive branch small amount of justices clerks staff so very small branch of government usually operate under very would say congenial, very friendly operation and a news outlet was able to obtain a copy of a working draft of a very controversial Supreme Court case that we were talked about on the outlaw lawyers. This is a case that we have mentioned a time or two.

We talked about Roe V Wade on the outlaw lawyer were that were to revisit those a little bit today before we get into the nuts and bolts of our discussion, but we we had another script for the show trashed right leading us down this hours research I did that showed his legendary so if you're if you're if you're you listen that will lawyer a lot, hopefully, are the time that we spent preparing for the show comes through here again we pivoted with.

This is all that anybody is going to be talking about and we do try to make a sentence timely and useful, so we wanted to delve all the way into this issue. I know the chief justices ordered an investigation to figure out how the leak happened and before we get to talk about substantially what we've learned because of the leak was just talk about how odd it is that this is happened and it is a lot of speculation on how it happened and who did it and what their purposes are and I guess is a good time to remind you that here on on our show. We all have our personal beliefs. You know we we have some conservative folks. We have some more liberal folks. I'm so were not apolitical. I believe we come here really just try to talk about the law and what were looking at what's before you know a court to cheat the justices here, the Supreme Court observed religious or look at what's happening and try to analyze it as attorneys.

I think this is one of those topics where it may be a little bit hard to to completely shield her hand in and what we personally believe, but were not here to judge anybody I were not here to say abortion is right, abortion is wrong really here just to look at legally what are we looking at and as attorneys, you know, try to inform non-attorneys like how we should be reading this in and what's what we find interesting was not interesting as I got a feeling the national media outlets. A lot of them probably will take the time to maybe read the whole opinion opinion so we have in the end, look at it in an historic framework that first thing start but is just the leak never seen anything like this happen before. Nothing will ever happen again, but this is we talked about how the institution of the Supreme Court is kind of changing. I think it's you that I wanted to if you get that same feeling I need to get the feeling that changing a little bit. It's kinda still an unprecedented thing that this link is happened. This is coming from executive branch know we went into shock this coming from a leak from Congress to NBT shot, but the fact that the Supreme Court had a leak, not just a Little League like it's not just like a paragraph of the opinion the entire first draft of the opinion with the judge's names on it. All the detail of their case notes. Their references if everything is for viewer references 98 we have the only thing it's 98, four so politico is the news outlet that leaked this poll drafted. They also had a separate article about previous leaks in the Supreme Court. There hasn't been anything like this where the full draft. However, there have been previous leaks where reporters have clearly known what was happening 88. We have no political your switch to be hard to. I guarantee you know if you have any idea what I think when you're dealing with you.justices that do have their own political leanings. There clerks at political leanings.

People are human beliefs like hundred percent leak that was never been to this degree.

Like okay well okay. Hate to say now this is not happen like things okay thing is crazy well and I think will eat really if we ever find out will determine how we view this sum of the previous leaks have been people in like that typesetting almonds which is a very different like position and motive for a leak than if this were a clerk or a clerk with justice, approval or justice than themselves.

After this happen.

I went to the one place you probably shouldn't go after something like this have the right, and Twitter twitter just to see you know how different talking heads or whoever you know you and if you are on the liberal side.

This was a conservative who did this, and these were all the reasons and if you were super conservative talking head. It was a Democrat, a liberal person who did this and this is why they did it. Everybody's extremely sure you know this is the how many are like the one person puts it out of everybody.

I seen everything, people have been on both sides and you know the other side did it just to try to force the courts hand like both sides are claiming that and then a lot of people are already using it for midterm elections.

Sure ways both ways.

Everybody's already worked it into their campaign people are like okay you have something that can be used both ways is pretty pretty united. I did, I was I was sort of familiar with the Supreme Court operates. But know this draft and we know a couple things that we know is not final right we know it draft. There's no concurring opinions. There is no defense if there is a strong very strong descendents now comes later writer circulating and we been trying to guess when we would get verdict in and I think you know, you know, the Supreme Court has a conservative slant right now for the first time in my life, I think, must, and when I was a baby early 70s thing was interesting to me that this draft doesn't say who the majority is so it's just Alito's decision but it's not things joining him in that decision and that's of course a lot of things news media. Speculating about right now try to figure out which justices are even joining him in this and this was a first draft.

It was circulated February 10 it's already name we don't know what happened. This first draft.

So there's so there's a lot we we don't and people you know, depending on what site you know if you if you're if you're against abortion been using. This is also right you think this is finally. You know my side is is being told. And if you're if you're for abortion is terrible you know and again we don't know what this look like when it's actually finalized you justice constructs can still change votes right do not. They may have taken an informal vote after oral arguments back in when were oral arguments two months ago for 60 to 90 days and thought about this crap right now, so arguments were one another. It is usually an informal process with "but they're not done are still not hurt you know that's one of the theories behind the leak is maybe to get justices thinking about their vote in which is bad wider implications. Just seeing people protesting outside Supreme Court. If that's the way a Supreme Court justice process. There is already there.

We were the hurricanes playoff game Monday night so I went with the work with the hurricanes game came home with directly to bed because that's late for me as I no idea what happened Monday and then Tuesday I rolled in and started kinda figured out you know what happened but big big new cycle item will be for a while put Ukraine on the back burner in the major news cycles but it's going to be an interesting interesting every week like 99 times.

Pretty interesting. Interesting to call you very aware of things that I must say that you get my thesaurus out. This is very fascinating here is not today but again I do want to tell everybody we're here to talk about just the law were not necessarily advocating a certain position. We may actually play devils advocate, so I Joe said he may even ask a bunch of questions that makes you think he's one where the other one really is the is on the other side.

So we're looking at this strictly from a legal position and surrender. Ethelbert I know you like to get to the lawyers Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer. You can find that Whitaker and Hamer law firm of the managing partners there practicing attorneys here in North Carolina in studio with us this week and on the radio.

Cassandra, Nicholas and Taylor Scruggs Smith. I will remind everybody to if you're listening on the radio 1061 4 o'clock on Saturdays right here in Raleigh and Durham. The truth Saturday at 1 o'clock and then in Smithfield and TSP that Saturday to back with more the lawyer Sandra Nicholas is here and Taylor Scruggs Smith and we had a lot go on in the past week and were talking about it were to start with Roe V Wade forget their I was thinking about something I want to share with everybody your show so you know, so I was out Tuesday. We talked about Monday were the hurricanes game great game game was very happy very fun time it was different so they went home with bed woke up Tuesday morning figured out this it happened is very interesting.

Fascinating to attorneys. So we spent the day, talking about this. I went home and consult my Bob wife and my kids were asking questions because they're old enough, watch the news talking about that shut everything down is only if you're aware last night was the premiere of holy moly which is very great show, the holy moly people haven't paid me to say that I also share that with so many kids all hunkered down. I watched holy moly between the Muppets and it was that it was a nice break was nice break. I went directly to bed after it was over. That's what what is 7:30 PM. The post was almost 930 so Joshua reviewed very quickly. Holy great show ever since. It is the finest and want to. I think that there not ever since. I still like the I need to bring that to the general public, very serious show this week… To be a lot of joking, but that's the fun families, fun family chosen to remain what can I mention one thing about hockey is managing partner created. I guess committed an ultimate, no, no, when it comes to playoff hockey. There was a Boston Bruins man invited into our area. What he was always 500 right to you.

It was that he is a very polite fan and he thought that being able to see the sadness on his face was. It was a great addition to the environment. Overall, the despair, like just all hope drains out.

I must remember to ask a series it's not a one day it is, but that one day we went awesome and always the rest of the series I serious that I really I felt that we needed that.

I feel like now we can. Holy moly entertain my family. I felt like he could bring us some levity. The middle very serious discussion. Holy I so before we talk about the leak, and here's here's what leak. So here is the yes this is at work on the radio, but if you watch us on YouTube.

I get a big old homey pages was the 90 this is what leak. This is what we've all been pouring over but before you get to what might be. We need to talk about where we were right right now were United States abortion law rest right now.

And to do that yes talk about Roe V Wade, and so we thought about before. Cassandra what happened. The Roe V Wade was a 1973 case in front of the Supreme Court the right to abortion had never been recognized before that point in time and that decision reached the protection of the right to abortion through privacy rights. So there's a whole line of cases that I know in Taylor's studied more recently than me, that extends from those privacy rights. While that is a strong word.

They're all just try to make a look at. So I think it kinda goes back towards the elitist grins while be Connecticut and ex-cons.

The line of cases. From there, where the Supreme Court kind of say okay because of these rights and that are codified in the amendments to the Constitution. There seems to be a sphere of privacy that the drafters intended and so by combining all these rights were to say that there is a right to privacy and they did. That little bit to the due process clause as well. In the 14th amendment and so there's been a line of cases since then they dealt with Mary's interracial marriage. The rights contraceptives the right to do what you want your own bedroom. Several cases like that that kind of led up to Roe V Wade and that was kind of the privacy right that was involved in that they usually have four years after, Judges 2, just as you have your you have your Supreme Court justice is strictly interpret the Constitution so you like you if it's not a specifically new rumored right but they don't read stuff in the Constitution, so there's the type of justice is like a we got a Constitution founding fathers knew what they were doing.

This is what it is that we can interpret it or not is not our job to add anything to it, subtract anything from it. It is what it is and and will important interpret that way you got a line of thinking other justices who will say the Constitution is a living breathing document and were using it to govern 200 years into the future they could never imagine we have these problems and are of these issues and and we need to address it as best we can. Based on the foundation that we have and so those two lines of thinking are often what the justices when they are not agreements with not agree on why Taylor said the whole line of cases were that the court is really struggled because I see the Constitution doesn't talk about married couples right contraceptives, right interracial marriage, or things that the founding fathers were not dealing with immediately. When they wrote the Constitution.

And so the court's struggle to say we need to address these these things. It's not an amendment strictly the Constitution and and so they created these these rights that I would: implied rights of the Constitution protects this this and this. So it makes sense that it would also protect this constitutional interpretation that is at issue here. The Roe V Wade decision explicitly incorporated modern context as one of the factors that there that they were looking at so they specifically one of their factors in the Roe V Wade decision was the demands of the profound problems of the present day, which justices understood strictly interpreting the Constitution would never put that line the decision right and that's part of the sticking point of Roe V Wade always being is that people have said okay this is an explicit right. How did they get to this that that type of balancing act between those two types of interpretation. Theories what kind of lettuce to Roe V Wade in the current case before us did Ruby Wade what what what was the rule of law after the way we did Ruby Wade Institute did establish the trimester system of pregnancy, which had been referred to previously, but not in Supreme Court decision not by law. So then using that trimester system. It established kind of a viability of the fetus standard when abortion needs to be protected is a right and when the fetus now has rights so that created the sticking point for people that has lasted right so you you need to use any of these decisions were always talking about competing interest usually have something being litigated Supreme Court level District Court level Small Claims Court is because you have two groups or two people with competing interest and so a judge or justice or to have to decide. Basically, who's more correct lifetimes.

You got two sides that make really good arguments, but there has to be a general rule of law. There has to be a point where you you know, and I think that's what they're doing here.

You know you've got people were like a look. The you know, maybe some people believe that conception of an unborn fetus has a has rights. That's life. There may be religious reasons people believe that may be completely nonreligious reasons people believe that but there's there's people like we have to state has an interest just like you know those folks were compared like a murder right you have an interest in protecting life and so if you're saying this unborn fetus on day one as is a life worth protecting your you're going to be anti-abortion activist because you believe you have to protect the rights of that unborn fetus right in. On the other side of the argument you got a fine argument that you know a woman needs to be in control of reproduction to live and work in and be an active American and those interests are what butting heads and MP4 very solidly once like in the middle like I don't care what crazy people that are going to go on twitter go somewhere and just like really crazy your passion. Passion are some people in the middle who are like, okay, maybe there needs to be some government not to this extent. I think that's the only kind of metal you have said, those are the people who issued ones that fall more towards the middle ones that get drowned out by the echo chambers on amazing. I was not alive and 73 I'm not quite that fetus. I can't report on you know what was going on in the nation at a time. This was a hotly contested issue that had been for some time as it made its way to the Supreme Court of Supreme Court was, you know more liberal leaning Supreme Court at the time, but this is an issue.

You know the countries looking up to us to make this decision and and and for better or worse anyone said you wanted me.

They made a decision really tried to go. I think try to try to make both sides. Yeah, from 1973 until 92 states were required to not make abortion illegal, but they could make it very difficult to see how we got the case yes exactly us in the case of Casey in front of the screen part 1992 made it so states couldn't place undue burdens on the right to abortion.

So states previously where were implementing things like requiring women to hear the heartbeat before they could go through with abortions are having waiting. I married you had to tell your husband, and he had to come in and sign consent or sometimes even if you weren't married depend on the state that father had to come in and sign and agree deftly that waiting. Some states I think headed up to like 48 hours away. And yet, like classes that the deal beforehand and made it really difficult for that right to be used in any way. So the court had to readdress it. 92. Casey reaffirmed of the right to abortion, reaffirmed Roe V Wade and then also added that standard restricting states from placing undue burdens on that right and that's the way it's been right so there's been cases every year that come up were Supreme Court has to look at something the state has done to maybe put up roadblocks or to make it even more difficult and that the Supreme Court is said to say okay let's you can do that but okay. You can't do this is there's this whole lineage of case law after after Road after Casey left kind you know Monisha right this will work this won't work in an there's a lot of states other than spend a lot of time trying to craft legislation when he said to make it as hard as possible and if you're at if you're against abortion, then you you trumpet like like that the court will strike down with the can, but the same time will be Wade by largest been settled since that this is the first time you see this or 50s drastic action came up a lot in the confirmation hearing for some news outlets and senators are starting to come out thing like they don't know how to feel about the confirmation hearings that went on because this was brought up several times with a lot of these new justices confirmation hearings, but none of them lied playing. They successfully lawyered their lawyer said it wasn't even it depends. They said this has been settled for 50 years.

They were to do something about right though I live.

I did their job. They will talk about anything that will talk about settled law will talk about story decisiveness and will talk about a lot of other Latin legal terms that are super fun and exciting talk about next all right guys, the lawyers Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer. You can find them at Whitaker and Hamer law firm. The managing partners there again practicing attorneys here in North Carolina in studio with this returning guest Cassandra Nicholas also an attorney at Whitaker and Hamer as well as Taylor Scruggs Smith also interning at Whitaker and Hamer. If you got a legal situation that you're dealing with.

You got questions, I got a phone number for you to get in touch Whitaker and Hamer. It's 800-659-1186. That's 800-659-1186 and just leave him contact information briefly what that calls about attorney with Whitaker and Hamer will be in touch. You can always email your questions to the lawyers questions at yellow wonderful website. Again the lawyer said today watching on our YouTube channel. We have Cassandra, Nicholas and Taylor Scruggs.

Smith also attorneys at Whitaker and Hamer want to remind you to. If you have a legal situation you're facing. You just got questions while got a number for you can call it you get some answers. Here it is 800-659-1186. That's 800-659-1186 leave your contact information. Briefly, what the call is about an attorney with Whitaker and Hamer will be in touch.

You can always email your questions to again questions@theoutlawlawyer.com and I know working to get into the Texas law and Dodds versus Jackson's women's health right so so we spent the last segment counted detailing where where were at designation for the past 50 years Roe V Wade and its progeny. Progeny is progeny is what's coming govern the state of abortion in less and you might hear over 50 years old. I'm not a lawyer here over 50 years old think I think about like that that out of big voices lawyers. Most of us have been alive.

This is been the rule is almost so possibly it might not be going for right now it is someone to spend some time talking about the to the two matters before the court that have gotten us to this to this week rights were slowly getting to the lake but we talked about this before the show but there was a Texas law name was a cold Texas. We did have like another name. Now is the text we talked about some not so Texas. Texas is the Texas state came up with a law that to discourage abortion and it was it was kind of ingenious to a certain point I'm personally not a fan of the type of wall that they created because I can see things will talk about that, but they create a law where they wouldn't say abortions illegal clicking Roe V Wade says abortion is in fact very legal and so they fixed it will make a law that was and immediately get struck down.

So what they did is they basically said you helping someone obtain an abortion is the fact illegal right so you have some civil penalties so if you know so when you drew drove someone to get an abortion, or the doctor that performed the abortion or the nurse at the clinic. If you have personal knowledge of this happened, you could in theory sue them for up to $10,000 and think it was in damages it and so the Texas state legislature came up with enacted the governor signed a law and that has really discouraged is that the impact of discouraging women from seeking abortions in the state of Texas is Utah's private citizen and they and they they achieve their goal right there goal. I think pretty blatantly was we don't want anymore E by having abortions in the state of Texas and this law pretty much did it. It variations of their big challenges to the Supreme Court over the past year challenging the legality of the constitutionality of that law and its survived as much as the super gorgeous, pastoral challenges, like send it back to state court.

Someone else look at this you don't have standing. I was always very dangerous business model law could just be used to limit any number of constitutional rights of gun ownership you circumvent constitutional anxiety should have immediately does not lasted like this should not be allowed to matter how you felt about abortion.

That was kind of our opinion on that Supreme Court's doing with that and also the case that we talked about the case that is directly related to the leak. The Dodds the Jackson women's health case was to tell us about that case, so the line that one kind of dream I say except in a medical emergency. If it's over 15 weeks. No abortions allowed pretty straightforward, they said, not an instrument they said a person shall not intentionally or knowingly perform or induce an abortion of an unborn human being if it's Pat if they believe it's past 15 weeks into the pregnancy and the only exception is medical emergency, which typically refers to the life of the mother so that that's the one that got all the way up to the Supreme Court that was kind of a pretty blatant no abortion not going with the typical trimester test that came up in row though. That's how we got to Supreme Court cases out of Mississippi, Jackson, Mississippi right so Mississippi knew this law occurred structure under Roe V Wade, this law is is illegal right. 15 weeks is is inside of the first trimester is my math right, but it inside of the viability test that was okay. So they knew this would be challenged. That was they knew they made this law probably was in a pass legal muster. It was going to be challenged and I think when we get to lick the opinion. The Supreme Court, hints at that like the Supreme Court time to deflect these things that we talked about this before the show is hell. Several states have done this varying degrees basically put laws that were in violation of the Roe V Wade standard. I guess just Weatherby try to force the hand of the whatever the reason was it something we discussed in the past show is a recent phenomenon.

We discussed trigger laws that ask what is a trigger law that trigger laws are in most of times laws that are ready to become actual law, like their draft in writing signed in past once they've actually already been finally pass that on the books again.

13 state so their existing laws where they don't become effective until until Roe V Wade is right.

We know abortion is legal with the minute.

It's not legal more or less total in 13 states have that on the books right now a few other states are making it a total ban, but it's highly limited like this Mississippi law.

The lake, a good number of states probably almost half the states have a lot ready to go if Roe V Wade gets overturned and so this case for what seemed like forever this year just waiting to see what the official outlaw lawyer prediction was the official prediction was not so you what I think I remember whenever the formal actual not draft opinion comes out.

That's what our production unit. We have a conservative leaning court. I think it would've made. I think it would make sense to expect some sort of narrowing of of Roe V Wade.complete overturning Bryce probably said that was unlikely this draft is really strong language for me. At least this this is a really unexpected opinion I think.

I think we I think most people thought you were 50 years. And at this point it is amenable talk more about that is me court can change course because they can, but I think most of us thought that okay will abortion rights are about to be limited more than than some people probably will verify you know, however, you know, just more of a standard I can even envision a scenario where they give some things back to the states right they say okay abortion. Roe V Wade is Roe V Wade, but this is what were going to let states you know so I did have some sort of tightening of restrictions and it is a mystery and up again the leak is not a final document. We can't, we can't stress that enough sense, that's, where we were. We were all sitting there waiting for some sort of guidance from the Supreme Court that Texas law and the Dodds case and and I guess we still are waiting for some kind of final word, but in the meantime, 90 some pages instructor 9898 drop in our laps, and now we have at least an idea of what the court is thinking an incomplete idea.

I'm not final idea, but that is what is triggered the nonstop media coverage of this for the past day or two. And what I'm sure will be several more days and weeks of of coverage but Celexa get to the delete opinion what it says and what the court is thinking the al-Awlaki or Josh Whitaker and Joe Hamer Whitaker law firm. The power behind the program. I Morgan Patrick consumer advocate are special guests in studio and if you're watching on YouTube. You can see us. It's Cassandra Nicholas and also Taylor Scruggs Smith attorneys at Whitaker and Hamer again.

What sparked this discussion. A draft of the US Supreme Court opinion in the landmark abortion case of Dobbs V.

Jackson women's health organization leaked everyone's talking about it so we are getting into that discussion today. If you got a legal situation you're facing. And you got your own set of questions and you need some answers.

I got a phone number for you 800-659-1186. That's 800-659-1186 and again just leave your contact information briefly with calls about an attorney with Whitaker Hamer will be in touch. You can always email your questions to the program that's questions have the outlaws back at Whitaker in Hamburg. We say this all the time but if you got a legal situation and you've got questions, you need answers I got a phone number for you 800-659-1186. That's 800-659-1186 of your contact information briefly with calls about an attorney with Whitaker Hamer will be in touch and you can always email your questions to the show answer and future programs. Questions at the outlaw while your dot-coms will get back into it. A draft of the US Supreme Court opinion in the landmark abortion case Dobbs of the Jackson women's health organization. What was Lincoln, how long, how many pages 98 pages, and it has sparked a lot of discussion around the country and were talking about it today on the outlier.

So in this segment. I want to talk about, where it is, where does this leave us right. So where all, were speculating before, but now that we have this leaked opinion in front of us. We can have an idea, at least, of where the court might be might be leaning and so now we have to figure out what would what do we do now, what are states doing so a lot of the states in reaction to this are creating lives, and even constitutional amendments in California's case to protect the right to abortion in their states to essentially become haven states or abortion especially states that border.

Other states with these trigger laws where it will immediately become a illegal to have an abortion. So a lot of those trigger laws creates criminal penalties for women that are seeking abortions. Some of them for the doctors that perform yeah so like manslaughter charges. Though the other states that are reacting to this that are becoming haven states are creating protections for those women to be protected from prosecution if they come for an out-of-state abortion will get back there.

I think I think worse is that so this is opinion. If it's if we if this is what we get delivered, as that is the true final opinion of of the court. It says that Roe V Wade was Bible was always about it strongly set the steam room produced looked like let it legislation and looked like something that would be expected from a legislative body, which is a Supreme Court opinion, I think one thing interesting to you because this opinion.

I know a lot of people thought because this is a law that mainly deals with women that this would be dealt with under strict scrutiny, which is an equal protection standard and they knock that out relatively quickly incited to another case where they relate that rightly get regulation of a medical procedure that only one sex can undergo does not trigger heightened constitutional screen so they're actually handling this case under rational basis review and which is the editor for the support and then after that they're kind of going into okay for Road the problem was they created a right that wasn't implied in the Constitution and they are looking at the main test of whether that was a right that was deeply rooted in our history and tradition, and therefore essential to the nation scheme of ordered liberty, nor to say that right existed seems problematic reasoning. If you read Justice Alito's leaked opinion here it was, it was definitely a scathing treatment of Ruby weight as of the court.

The reason we talked about confirmation hearings.

Reason justices or potential justices get asked about settled law stare decisis right right so that the court has a a a cool wet phrase there just basically means settled law, settled law and should be disrupted or overturned. It was an absolutely has to be because people rely on these decisions right for all kinds of things healthcare here, but businesses are the general public. We all rely only Supreme Court decisions to be law and you turning them over changes a bunch of stuff for folks and here obviously taking away a constitutional right is it doesn't happen very often it doesn't, it's very rare that they Alito's theory scathing in his treatment of the show. There's no confusion about where should we a lot about this leaked from this leaked opinion, but we know justice Alito wrote not a fan of not clear how he feels about her stare decisis. He said they shouldn't have even confirmed row in KC and actually with kind of disparaging in the court that he heard Casey in that opinion. For everything going after row then and actually looking at the law is of the Supreme Court's main mate will we leave you here 2022 is is mistakes in the past of Plessy V Ferguson nurses long list of cases where the Supreme Court, in our opinion now looking back, made horrible horrible decisions that have been overturned, so it's not that bald settled law can never be overturned]. Should you have. It's about all I think argument as it should be a return.

You should always stare decisis you should always not do it right and was nicely really, really, is that what you a lot a lot of folks in the media. We been very critical of the quarter for the past four or five years. The process to become a justice is very political and arguably it shouldn't be but but here we are, and it is so getting justice nominated and in confirmed very political always covered very intently. Answer everything the court does now, we kind of you in a political light which I hate to do it that way. Brandt happens it comes up anyway so if the Supreme Court is to say that that that women American Americans don't have a right a constitutional right to abortion, then that leaves it up to the states right it leaves it up to the federal government or the state government to do something so the Supreme Court is not saying abortions should be illegal. This is a big step if they if they do in fact say abortions are not a constitutionally protected right is and that leaves it open to every state to interpret Congress to interpret and so over time I trigger laws law states and taken steps to say hey in this state. It'll be 100% illegal right in other states. Like he said New York and California going out a way to say that we will be legal for like I think I saw New York's governors. I know it will be legal. New York, but anybody who needs this company ultimately is to be more difficult for a woman who wants to get worse and worse. This is how it all plays out any moment and this is what the court is what Alito saying you know we've had all these cases every year. We have to kind decided in the court is not a religious leader, body right now, think maybe Alito that this part right and don't say I agree with every thing Alito did, but this is a matter that needs to be elected officials need to take care of this right elect officials let us down a lot, which is why we have the court right we have we have folks who have a lifetime appointment to look at this, but if it's good we listen to elected officials and that's skiing that were snug with until someone and it could be left up to elected officials in the states. Or it could be handled by elected officials in federal Congress as well that they could actually implement something to take care of this international level. They have met something about this tomorrow. Congress could say was Supreme Court says but abortion will be legal.

And then they could set a federal structure and then we would. We wouldn't care what the final opinion of the Supreme Court is one thing that's especially come up a lot on the media outlets is kind of just the reasoning in his argument and you know Alito is a wonderful justices I see a sound argument were not saying it's wrong or it's right. I think it has implications that may need work properly considered, and little bit and I say that because the way he attacks the right to privacy and how the court came up with that leaves open the avenue for those other cases that were decided under right.

I only rooted right he's an early rooted standard. I think, is what's kind of frustrating a lot of people at home. They don't understand his at the time he goes back to late 13th century English law, or even early 20th century to say how much it wasn't deeply rooted in his analysis of the history is correct, that I think not accounting for how the right to privacy kind of a ball leaves open the right contraceptive case or the right to marriage case or even think a lot of people here right now is gay marriage case because if the right to privacy doesn't exist.

That's what those cases were kind of firmly stained story the sizes right thing. There was a time when a married person could get contraceptive is a Supreme Court case that said, hey, this is not the same as that speaks to societal changes to because when that was law that was probably a bunch of people who just okay with that make sense does it make any sense with this.

This right to privacy, that that is been secreted or invented.

But this right of privacy has been read into the Costa Duchenne are not only has it been really employee the past 20 or 30 years. I'm sure your 2030 4050 years from now. You see a lot more rights right right like that with this court as the court changes they say on justices, this court can be around for a while just sweet TV show think that's kind of like the big media concern right now because it just leaves a lot of things open because the same analysis because it is so sound can be applied very easily to those other cases.

So a lot of people fearing no contraceptives right now, gay marriage, things like that. I think rightfully so because no interpretation. He was pretty clear that a lot of room to explain 20 that we haven't heard a thing is what he's been doing for like 100 days like since oral arguments, he's just been writing you page. Holy moly enjoying holy moly family. Mike even has a case. I mean a law from every state in the 1800 think probably the most part of the scene is 26 states that have asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe V Wade is a 26 states with half half the union that half the population but half the union's argument is that sprinklers asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe V Wade so you definitely have a fairly evenly divided populace on this baby right so being the nonlawyer onset 50. The over the nonlawyer onset so it's drafted sometime in February this week in early May. We don't know how much change with the fact that it was leaked what he wanted that information out as a show.

How do you think this is going and out prediction that will there will be an investigation. I think they will probably figure out who did it and it will probably be a lower level employee that probably gets the lower employee. I imagine a law clerk doing this is reasoning on both sides for the sleep that happened and I don't know I don't. Supreme Court law clerks are typically young folks relatively fresh out of law school, and they've got very promising careers in front of the premium you have an issue that in the past people have been willing to literally bomb places over will law clerk strongly is a practicing because we see a law clerk. That's a practicing attorneys that someone is done very well in law school be no longer in a few specific law schools so your practicing attorney in your clerking with the US Supreme Court. Your future is wide open really needs your serve right away so I got a law clerk would then the rest would be if it's found out I would imagine you getting disbarred your lease could be and out suspended your careers over right side you can imagine they would do it. Imagine a Supreme Court justice would do it. I think that would almost be unthinkable with this opinion was on think will to and I think that's hard to even predict what happens next.

And I think the only thing I'm already kind of interesting to see the sense I know that will be one visit will probably be equally anything not completely ineffective not to my write the concurring opinion where they agree in his ruling, but not in his reasoning like so like I want to know more when I think I don't come up against the commercial break. This is a lot.

This tells us a lot we didn't know, but also Liselotte? Yes we we don't.

There's a lot we don't lead to another show that the lawyers Josh Whitaker and Johanna Whitaker and Hamer law firm. The power behind the programmer special guest today, Cassandra, Nicholas and Taylor Scruggs Smith attorneys at Whitaker and Hamer. I will be back right after the short break, but I do want to remind you if you got a question legally that you need an answer for got a number for you 800-659-1186. That's 800-659-1186 leader contact information briefly what the calls about an attorney with Whitaker and Hamer will be in touch and just a reminder, Josh and Joe there managing partners of the firm and the price attorneys here in North Carolina that back in managing Whitaker him a law firm here in North Carolina. Morgan Patrick consumer advocate joint onset, Cassandra, Nicholas and Taylor Scruggs Smith also attorneys at Whitaker and Hamer we have done a whole bunch of the show we got a rapid Josh to the things we haven't talked about is delete this Supreme Court draft. We don't know why they did it.

They don't know what we don't know the reason is I think one of things that we can say will definitely happen though. As a result is will be a lot of threats maybe is my best on the right reviving threats to the Supreme Court and how it stands and how it operates in one we've, we kinda seen Congress and the executive branches before is back though Congress has the ability to expand how many people actually sit on the Supreme Court. That's not set in stone that are actually varied during history between five justices and 10 justices. It's been sitting at nine justices since 1869, but that could absolutely change think the last time it was really I guess on the use just as words of the right, but was I believe around FDR's new deal when it was coming out that they might overturn all of his new deal procedures and if you handle the size of the court and add like eight new liberal justices that would absolutely change the outcome of every case going definitely think this issue is important enough to enough people as long as as long as will say I guess would be Democrats of there's enough Democrats in Congress, a prison of Democrats in power there some Republicans to that I think would be aggravated with with what's transpiring. If you have the support and you could nominate and confirm was the spring 16 was the limit on the total.

I don't know what the limit is total justices that that executive branch is 50 or 60 on the wood either but like you said, here's eight new seven new or however many right liberal minded justices. So now the conservative majority of five or six is five or six minority, but the Senate would need a vote of 60 people in the last thing get rid of the filibuster and then they only need 50 and I haven't looked at midterms. I don't know you were pretty evenly divided Senate right now, but something like this being leaked at this time and that being thrown out there, I might motivate some bases together and vote. One thing we should add to is that I know a lot of people are wondering what the newly appointed Justice Jackson's opinion is on this and I think with kind of important know that she's not in this case that she's a boat she's not can't write opinion on it.

She's not on the court yet. She has this really long way.

There like wow it may be a really long way. But she not on this term. The outliers another one in the books, Josh Whitaker, Joe Hamer, your host, the managing partners Whitaker law firm are special guests this week.

Cassandra, Nicholas and Taylor Scruggs Smith also attorneys at Whitaker and Hamer. You got a legal question, give them a call 800-659-1186 at 800-659-1186 question question The on the radio and on YouTube. Attorney licensed to practice law in North Carolina. On the show. Maybe license North Carolina attorneys discussion of the chosen to be general in nature and in no way should be interpreted as legal advice. We would like to attorney licensed in the state in which you live the opportunity to discuss the fact of your case with you. The attorneys appearing on the show are speaking in generalities about the law. North Carolina and how these laws affect average Carolinian. If you have any questions about the content of the show, contact us directly


Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime