If the despicable idiot, likely a Sotomayor clerk, who leaked the Roe decision thinks she’s going to pressure Roberts, well, dumb move sweetheart. The CJ can’t encourage this leak outrage and if he was ever wavering will now side prolife out of general principle.
Here are three views on the decision and leak. First from the court and Roberts himself. Then from a distinguished academic and presidential historian and finally from a GOP elected official who has been on the prolife front lines of the abortion fight. All are right on the money.
It’s impossible to overstate the earthquake this will cause inside the Court, in terms of the destruction of trust among the Justices and staff. This leak is the gravest, most unforgivable sin.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) May 3, 2022 
Chief Justice John Roberts: “Justices circulate draft opinions internally as a routine and essential part of the Court’s confidential deliberative work. Although the document described in yesterday’s reports is authentic, it does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case,” the court said.
“To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed. The work of the Court will not be affected in any way,” Roberts said.
“We at the Court are blessed to have a workforce – permanent employees and law clerks alike – intensely loyal to the institution and dedicated to the rule of law,” he said. “Court employees have an exemplary and important tradition of respecting the confidentiality of the judicial process and upholding the trust of the Court. This was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants who work here,” Roberts concluded.
Professor Tim Blessing of Alvernia University: “Whoever did this pretty well cemented the decision in place. The Supremes, for good reasons, treasure their independence and being free from outside pressure, at least by Washington standards. They also enjoy being one big collegial club. The five judges who joined in this opinion must be furious. And the process of compromise, quite common inside the court, has, I am sure, ground to a halt. It is, no . . . it was, entirely possible that Roberts could have picked-up Kavanaugh (and maybe even Barrett) with a properly written compromise opinion that ended Roe but established a new Federal precedent that, in some way, created a Federal recognition of abortion–at admittedly, a very low level. That chance just got shoved out of a third-floor window. The leaker seriously damaged their cause–and, perhaps, Sotomayor.”
PA Republican elected official and prolife leader John Fielding: “If true, this draft represents everything that pro-life conservatives have been wishing and praying for for almost 50 years. Roe was an example of the Supreme Court attempting to insert itself into the legislative role, and Casey was an excellent example of the consequence of the Court entangling itself in legislative issues as a result of Roe. A few other points of note.
First, this leak of a first draft is an unprecedented breach of trust by the staff of the Supreme Court, and I would not be surprised to see someone disbarred over this.
Second, this is an obvious attempt to ramp up a dispirited Democratic base in advance of the mid-term elections. Further, it will be responsible for any violent outcomes of the marches and other foolishness soon to follow.
Third, it is an attempt to influence down ballot state races since the logical consequence of such a decision at the federal level is that the abortion question will be punted to the states.
Fourth, most people don’t seem to understand that the purpose of the Supreme Court is not to be swayed by the emotion of the moment, but to confine itself to a dispassionate examination of the law within the bounds of a written constitution. However, this is a desperate attempt to try to ‘pick off’ one or two conservative votes from the majority opinion despite the Court’s insularity.”