The Dobbs Fraud by SCOTUS's Fake Originalists (Part X)

Jihadi Sam

Some think the word jihad means “holy war.” But its broader meaning is to struggle or strive, particularly for a religious or spiritual purpose. That certainly fits Justice Alito. He is, at the very least, openly engaged in a highly personal religious struggle to protect and entrench his religious views in American society.

There is no reason to begrudge Justice Alito his religious views. But Justice Alito’s statements and conduct go considerably beyond views. His views motivate his activism in violation of our Constitution. Don’t take my word for that. Take his.

Mere days ago, Justice Alito was recorded at least hinting at somewhat fanatical views regarding religion. But his words then are only significant when viewed together with his words in and about how he conducts himself as a judge. The issue here is not that Justice Alito has religious views, nor is it what his views are. The issue here is that he believes that “religious liberty” (religious thought and speech) “is worth special protection.”

Mere months after issuing his opinion in Dobbs, Justice Alito spoke in Rome, in part, about Dobbs. He spoke to current and future lawyers, leaders and maybe judges at the 2022 Notre Dame Religious Liberty Summit sponsored by the Notre Dame Law School. He spoke about his battle to secure what he euphemistically referred to as “religious liberty.” He emphasized that sometimes such battles were a “life-or-death thing.” He might have been alluding to Dobbs. Justice Alito was strikingly direct at one point: “The challenge for those who want to protect religious liberty in the United States” is “to convince people who are not religious that religious liberty is worth special protection.” Justice Alito followed that statement with an illustration. His illustration emphasized that he meant that he thought religious thought and speech were entitled to more protection than other thought and expression that is secured by the First Amendment.

Justice Alito also openly accentuated a further connection to the First Amendment. He emphasized that “religious liberty is protected” so that “religious leaders” and “men and women of faith will be able to speak out on social issues.” He obviously meant the issues in Dobbs. He alluded to Dobbs as a “decision” that he “had the honor this term of writing” but “whose name may not be spoken.”

Even those words are really only relevant because of how Justice Alito uses his position on our highest court. Dobbs is illustrative. The entire first paragraph of Justice Alito’s opinion in Dobbs was all about politics and religion. Justice Alito deliberately empowered state legislators and voters with fanatical religious views (fanatical in their determination to impose their religious views on people who do not share their views).

The first paragraph of Justice Alito’s opinion emphasized what he did. He empowered state legislators to take action against citizens because of “a profound moral issue on which Americans hold sharply conflicting views. Some believe fervently [one way]. Others feel just as strongly [another way]. Still others in a third group think” another way and “hold a variety of views.” Justice Alito expressly designed Dobbs to support the group that he put first—those who “believe fervently.”

From start to finish, Justice Alito’s opinion was suffused with his beliefs about religion and conscience. He even openly echoed the moral and religious injunction Thou shalt not kill. He expressly acted to support those who hold “a sincere belief” that terminating any pregnancy at any stage “kills a human being.” He emphasized that he set himself against those who “disagree with this belief.”

Justice Alito’s Dobbs opinion (and other recent SCOTUS decisions and conduct showed) that Justice Alito is using his position to afford special protection (or less protection) to people because of their views about religion and conscience. Justice Alito is knowingly violating our Constitution. He knows his conduct is contrary to the plain language of the First Amendment.