Conservatives applauded Justice Samuel Alito’s recent opinion in the Dobbs case holding that there was no “right to abortion” in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and reversing the holding in Roe v. Wade. The result was correct, but a constitutional law professor friend confirmed my assessment that “the majority cheated.” Here is why. And you can read the very short opinion that I would have written if the goal was to uphold the Constitution as written.

The reversal of Roe v. Wade by the United States Supreme Court last Friday is certainly cause for rejoicing among those who are pro-life. And I do rejoice. But a profound conversation is lurking below the surface in the opinions of the various justices. It will be a critical mistake for Christians not to understand that conversation and not to consider how best to join it. Not joining the conversation and not doing so wisely will perpetuate our existence under what is, in principle (as I will explain) a tyrannical state and federal government.

Justice Samuel Alito’s leaked abortion decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization seems to have put many pro-life policy advocates in a rush to enact newer, stricter laws prohibiting doctors from performing abortion procedures. But by Justice Alito’s legal logic, all of us, the born and the unborn, are not much more than an aborted fetus. To be pro-life, one’s view of law and the constitution must go much deeper than prohibiting abortion procedures.

I am delighted that the U.S. Supreme Court appears poised to reverse its abortion precedents, Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The opinion does a great job dismantling the faulty historical analysis employed in Roe between abortion and its treatment under the common law. However, one thing I have not mentioned previously was particularly grievous to me in two ways.

People have begun to protest the leaked U.S. Supreme Court decision that would overrule Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey outside the homes of several Justices. I believe the Court has been fostering for decades the climate of threats and violence the Justices are now experiencing for the following reasons.

Pro-life advocates are naturally excited that the United States Supreme Court may be ready to reverse its abortion-rights jurisprudence.  But I found the leaked opinion amusing.  One such amusement was the Court's opening and closing its opinion with the assertion that abortion presents a “profound moral question” and then proceeding to ignore it. Truthfully, Justice Alito’s opinion is more despicable and disgraceful than the Court’s treatment of slaves and their descendants in the infamous decision involving slave Dred Scott.

Last week a pastor well known in certain Baptist circles in Tennessee texted these words to me after receiving my new book about the United States Supreme Court, The Naked Court-Understanding and Resisting a Damnable United States Supreme Court, “You are a camelhair-wearing, locust-eating, fire-breathing PROPHET.” So, now, turning from the Court, I will provide an honest assessment of the work being done in conservative and Christian political circles.

After meeting this week with a respected state legislator who I personally like and whose moral values I share, I left disheartened. CPED is killing our nation. I fear those now trying to recruit candidates to run for the legislature will not look for signs of CPED and will be sorely disappointed, even if their candidate wins. CPED is not easily detected, but this should help you spot it going forward.

“Barrett, Breyer, and Baloney” is not the name of a law firm that practices before the U.S. Supreme Court. Rather it is a description of my reaction to comments made this week by two Justices—one liberal, the other conservative (perhaps)—about the cries of liberals to expand the number of Justices on the Court (“court packing”). Of course, those cries intensified after the Court refused to intervene to prevent Texas’ abortion statute from going into effect. The Court created its own mess.

After further review and counsel, it seems the primary purpose of Texas’ new abortion law is to prevent abortions until the U.S. Supreme Court can decide, come next June, whether to affirm, reverse, or modify its abortion jurisprudence of the last 48 years. But the Court’s temporary decision not to block enforcement of the law contains a hidden constitutional gem that, if laid hold of by state officials, could allow us to restore constitutional government in our country.