Oh, Caren, this is just more rantings from one of the perpetually aggrieved.
All of the Supreme Court Justices who voted in favor of overturning Roe vs Wade in the Dobbs vs Jackson Women's Health Organization case DID NOT commit perjury because they referred to Roe as "settled law". All Supreme Court decisions are considered "settled law" until they are not. Despite the desires of leftists, the Supreme Court can only decide the law in question in cases they hear. They can't generally take a case on tort law and use it to overturn capital punishment.
At one time, Scott vs Sanford – 1857 – (the Dred Scott Decision) which affirmed that "African-Americans were not and could never be citizens of the United States" and Plessy vs Ferguson – 1896 – that established the doctrine of "separate but equal" were also both "settled law". Dred Scott was rendered moot with passage of the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery in 1865 and the 14th Amendment in 1868 granting citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States". While the Dred Scott Decision was "corrected" relatively quickly with ratification of the 13th and 14th Amendments, Plessy vs Ferguson was not overturned until the case of Brown vs Board of Education presented the Supreme Court with the opportunity to do so. That did not occur until 1954 fully 58 years after Plessy vs Ferguson became "settled law".
https://www.britannica.com/event/Dred-Scott-decision
https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/plessy-v-ferguson#:~:text=Sources-,Plessy%20v.,a%20car%20for%20Black%20people
Comparatively, the 1973 Roe vs Wade decision remained "settled law" for only 49 years. Like the decisions in both Dred Scott vs Sanford and Plessy vs Ferguson, legal scholars questioned the legal reasoning and decision in Roe vs Wade almost immediately and until it was overturned. Associate Justice Alito's well-reasoned Majority Opinion overturning Roe (and Casey) laid bare the judicial missteps in those decisions that resulted in the abortion issue being returned to the citizens of the several states and their elected representatives, as dictated by the Constitution.
This was a major victory for those who advocate for democracy and gives women a chance to vote on the issue that was denied them in 1973 by seven white men wearing black robes. That sort of empowerment giving all women registered voters including women registered voters of color a vote on an issue would be celebrated by those who favor identity politics if the issue was anything other than abortion.
The accusation that Associate Justice Alito leaked the Burwell vs Hobby Lobby decision is based on the hearsay letter of Mr. Schenk according to the Yahoo article you linked. If the "journalist" who wrote the article had taken time to interview the alleged sources Mr. Schenk claimed had advanced knowledge of the Hobby Lobby decision provided by Associate Justice Alito (Donald and Gayle Wright) and they corroborated Mr. Schenk's assertions, then there might be some "there there". The fact that he didn't suggests he knew they would not corroborate and only cared to cast aspersions on Associate Justice Alito in service to the left.
Associate Justice Alito did nothing that "deprives women of birth control" or "deprives them of abortion". The US Supreme Court affirmed Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights. Those Hobby Lobby employees affected by the decision were free to purchase all of the birth control they desired or to seek employment elsewhere where birth-control was included as part of their company insurance.
Similarly, the US Supreme Court (not solely Samuel Alito) heard a case that allowed them to correct a Supreme Court precedent decided based on poor legal scholarship and far removed from our national traditions that imposed arbitrary restrictions on abortion not advocated for by either party involved in the case. That last part is the action of a legislature, not a body of the judicial branch. The actions of the 1973 US Supreme Court also denied citizens the right to vote on the highly controversial issue.
I have to say your descriptions of the events that took place at the Supreme Court for which you fault Associate Justice Alito don't really align with the link you provided to support it.
I'm not sure what you find "sexist" in the source you linked. The quoted questions have Associate Justice Alito referencing an "unmarried Jewish person" and later a Jewish male asking for a photograph for "his AshleyMadison.com dating profile". AshleyMadison.com is a dating website marketed at would-be adulterers.
"Laughter swelled" when the audience (and apparently, members of the Court) thought he might be referring to Associate Justice Kagan being "familiar" with AshleyMadison.com because she had piped up about a different dating site catering to single Jewish people as she is Jewish. It's clear from the quotations he WASN'T referring to her with that line of questioning. It reads like he was slightly embarrassed his words could have been interpreted that way. He attributed his comment because Kagan "knows a lot of things" and that he was "not suggesting that…" THAT being her potential familiarity with AshleyMadison.com was because she might be a client of that website.
According to your linked source, it was Associate Justice Kagan who introduced the absurd hypothetical that black children might wear Ku Klux Klan outfits to visit a black Santa. Associate Justice Alito's comment was obviously on the absurdity of Associate Justice Kagan's hypothetical and not to imply that black children are going around wearing Ku Klux Klan outfits all the time as you seem to suggest.
Perhaps because you misrepresent the facts is why we are "not seeing screaming headlines about this in every media outlet in the land".
Judging by the comments and your "claps" most of your readers don't read your links. Too bad. Your reach to spread untruths (since this isn't the first time) would probably be severely reduced. That would serve all of us who read Medium articles well.
