To the Editor:
An opinion is indeed an opinion, but the Star Herald’s May 12 editorial titled “Despicable Leak,” presumably by the new editor, is itself despicable. It is one of the worst pieces of editorializing to have been promulgated on the newspaper’s pages in years. The topic was, of course, the leak involving the upcoming Supreme Court decision on abortion, which consisted of a draft opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, indicating that a majority of the court would be overturning Roe V. Wade, commonly known as “women’s right to abortion.” The opinion, whatever it was to be, was not supposed to be officially released until the earliest in June, following Supreme Court practices in the past for publishing opinions.
The Star Herald editorial was so biased towards pushing overworked and trite right wing FOX news like talking points about this leak that the editor tripped all over himself verbally to work them all in. This made for a laughable, but sadly deficient, piece of journalism, markedly lacking in acumen, insight, and integrity. This bias was expressed not only about who was asserted to be most likely responsible for the leak, but also about the substantive nature of the leaked opinion itself. Probably the editor asserts, in line with FOX and right-wing anti-abortionists, it was probably of course a liberal and probably of course someone pro-life who was responsible, and of course President Biden was mentioned by name in trying to take political advantage of the leak.
Regarding the substantive nature of the opinion, the editor’s bias was little more than a trite mouthing of a right wing strictly textualist, strictly conservative view of the Constitution claiming that it doesn’t verbatim mention a “right to privacy.” This is so vapid an utterance as to be reprehensible, even though the opinion itself utters this claim. The Constitution (of course ! duh!) doesn’t explicitly mention many things that nevertheless are individual liberties at the very core of the American constitutional system. Woven throughout the Constitution, however, are firm declarations supporting personal autonomy, which is what privacy is fundamentally about in certain arenas.
Yes, it is has long been noted and acknowledged by legal scholars (and otherwise informed individuals) that Roe V. Wade may be a poorly framed decision. This doesn’t mean that Roe reached an incorrect constitutional result regarding women’s right to bodily autonomy. It means that the constitutional basis for Roe would have been clearer if constitutionally framed differently. This would have shut down shallow vapid assertions that the words of the constitution don’t explicitly mention a right to privacy, even though such a right is obviously woven into its very fabric, not all of which Roe illuminated or drew on. It does not mean, as the editor claims (probably using a Tucker Carlson mantra) that Roe “fabricated” a non-existent right to privacy that women can’t and don’t have in regards to their own bodies.
As to one of the editor’s closing remarks, if applied to Justice Alito’s opinion, the remark was fatuous beyond belief, in saying essentially that if “properly reasoned” the opinion will stand the test of time. A fact check of Alito’s opinion has shown already that it is rife with gross factual errors and legal distortions. The opinion has been labeled harshly misogynistic, vindictive, indeed hateful in tone. If anyone is shaming the Supreme Court, it isn’t (even if it was), a liberal, pro-choice court clerk who leaked the opinion, but rather the shabbily written opinion itself. Even if one should agree with the decision, it is deplorably written and researched, as is the Star Herald editorial opining how great it is. I suggest the editor buy a copy of the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States and before spouting off again, read a few sections in it, including the length entry on privacy. Readers of the newspaper deserve more than the under informed tripe exhibited in this recent editorial.
- Beverly E. Johnson
