Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito dodged a question when asked about a leaked draft opinion he wrote showing the court was about to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
Alito made his first appearance since the draft opinion was leaked at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia School of Law. washington post informed. Towards the end of the talk, someone asked how he and the other judges were doing.
“I think it would be really helpful for all of us to know, personally, if everyone is okay in these very difficult times,” someone asked Alito, who spoke by video via closed circuit from a courtroom in the Supreme Court. .
“This is a topic that I told myself I wasn’t going to talk about today, you know, given all the circumstances,” he said. “The court right now, we had our conference this morning, we’re doing our job. We are taking new cases, we are heading towards the end of the term, which is always a hectic time as we express our opinions.”
Alito’s comments come as many protesters have gathered outside his home and that of other Supreme Court jurists. Many protesters camped out outside the event. Last week, Politico published the draft opinion written by Altio, who has served on the court since 2006.
“So that’s where we are,” he said at the law school’s fourth annual forum dedicated to the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
In his draft opinion, Alito denounced the 1973 court decision that said it enshrined the right to terminate a pregnancy. He also denounced the 1992 decision Planned Parenthood vs. Caseythat reaffirmed the right to abortion.
“Roe I was terribly wrong from the start. His reasoning was exceptionally weak and the decision has had detrimental consequences,” the draft opinion says. “And far from achieving a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe Y Casey they have inflamed the debate and deepened the divide.”
In contrast, at the university, Mr. Alito also criticized conservative Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch for his opinion in Bostock v. Clayton Countywhich said that federal civil rights laws protected LGBTQ+ employees and called Gorsuch’s reasoning “in my opinion, indefensible.”
“It is inconceivable that Congress or voters in 1964 understood sex discrimination as discrimination based on sexual orientation, let alone gender identity,” he said. “Had Title VII been understood at the time to mean what Bostock held it to mean, the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex would never have been enacted. In fact, he may not have gotten a single vote in Congress.”