In a rare Friday decision announcement, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson, the most anticipated case of the term, holding that “[t]he Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.”  This is a historic and monumental win for the rule of law and the proper role of the courts.

At last, Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey have been overturned after decades of litigation by pro-life advocates and those who support following the text of the Constitution.  The authority to regulate abortion is now returned from the federal courts to where it belongs: the people and their elected representatives.

So far, we've seen protests targeting Supreme Court Justices and their children, pregnancy centers being routinely firebombed, and churches ruthlessly targeted and attacked by radical pro-choice advocates.  All of this and more following the leaked opinion in the Dobbs case that could overturn Roe v. Wade, and yet the Left refuses to condemn the most radical displays of violence by those on their side. 

Weeks after a draft opinion was leaked in what many regard as the most prominent decision the Supreme Court will make in recent history, one question remains unanswered: Who did it? 

The Supreme Court has a long-standing history of being a highly respected institution that is secure from outside influence. But in recent years, likely due to the appointment of conservative Justices on the Supreme Court, the Left has continuously tried to tear down the Court's reputation, claiming its functions "undermine our American democracy." While the leaker and his or her political affiliation have yet to be determined, the leak of any opinion, especially in a case as significant as the Dobbs case, erodes the legitimacy of the Court and undermines our American democracy.  

It's been one week since a draft opinion from Justice Alito was leaked from the U.S. Supreme Court purporting to overturn Roe v. Wade, and unfortunately, some on the Left have resorted to intimidation and violence against Supreme Court Justices, pro-life organizations, and religious groups. The response by Democrats has been pitiful. Earlier today, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki finally commented on pro-abortion groups' tactics after previously skirting the question.

Previously, Psaki said, "I don’t have an official U.S. government position on where people protest” and that Biden did not have a "view on that” and called the issue a distraction.

"I think we shouldn’t lose the point here,” she said.https://t.co/7K5nwkC0WU

— Charlie Spiering (@charliespiering) May 9, 2022

As soon as POLITICO published a leaked draft opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito that would overturn Roe v. Wade and its progeny, the hot takes from the Left rolled in. Demand Justice Executive Director Brian Fallon's reaction exemplified where a lot of the Left is at. They are praising the leaker as a hero, rather than acknowledging the disastrous implications the leak has for the Court.

Is a brave clerk taking this unpredecented step of leaking a draft opinion to warn the country what's coming in a last-ditch Hail Mary attempt to see if the public response might cause the Court to reconsider?

— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) May 3, 2022

On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights held a hearing titled "An Ethical Judiciary: Transparency and Accountability for 21st Century Courts" to promote anything but ethics and transparency in the judiciary. The hearing was another effort to promote legislation that would impose unworkable recusal standards on the Supreme Court Justices and chill the speech of amici who want to make their voice heard on the most important legal issues of the day.

Witness Thomas Dupree explains how the Democrats' proposed legislation would chill the speech of amici who file briefs with the Court. pic.twitter.com/yqx320SEmR

— RNLA ⚖️ (@TheRepLawyer) May 3, 2022

Many commentators in the conservative legal sphere agree—there is no middle ground when it comes to the decision the U.S. Supreme Court will make in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. Carrie Severino writes for Fox News:

The current court would commit grave error in Dobbs if it replicated Casey’s gamesmanship with yet another baseless exercise in line-drawing. In other words, the only principled outcome here is for the court to overrule those two precedents, which are as unprincipled as any cases decided within living memory. 

Earlier today, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which has the potential to radically upend the current landscape of abortion jurisprudence. At issue in the case is whether a Mississippi law banning most abortions past 15 weeks of pregnancy is constitutional. This case is different from others that have come before the Court because it directly asks the justices to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in two challenges to Texas' newest abortion law in Whole Women's Health v. Jackson and United States v. Texas.

The law at issue, Senate Bill 8, effectively bans most abortions from taking place once a fetal heartbeat is detected. Only two months ago, the Supreme Court declined to grant an injunction to suspend the law, with Roberts siding with the liberal Justices. The law has remained in effect since.

At last night's Democratic Party Presidential debate, lagging far behind in the polls Presidential candidate Cory Booker made one heck of a logical leap to go to extremes on Democratic Party litmus test issues of abortion and voter suppression.