SCOTUS leak is already UNMASKING the dangerous far-left

A draft decision from the U.S. Supreme Court was leaked late Monday, showing a majority of the nine justices may be ready to overturn Roe V Wade. The source of the SCOTUS leak remains unknown, but the fact it happened at all is demonstrable of ANARCHY, Glenn explains. And now, how the far-left already is choosing to move forward from it — like Bernie Sanders calling to pack the court — could UNMASK their dangerous beliefs. Could the far-left use THIS to further burn our cities to the ground?


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Wow. Holy cow. Holy cow.

Last night, something happened that I thought would not happen in my lifetime. Something that I think actually -- it's going to be -- it's going to be rough getting through all of this. But I think that this is something that may have given us more time.

Or at least some blessings. We effectively stopped abortion last night, at least in some states.

Any state that decides, that they're not going to provide abortion, or they're going to make it illegal. That's fine.

You're going to see California and New York, I think after birth abortions are going to be in -- in the legislative body very, very soon.

Now, this was leaked, and that's another story. A big story. There's only about four people. That could have leaked this.

I talked to some people, that know people on the Supreme Court, and very close last night. And they were livid. Livid.

They said, this is -- this has not happened. Now, this has happened with the first Roe vs. Wade decision. But that happened like an hour before. And it didn't release the whole decision.

This is clearly, clearly to ignite our streets on fire.

And it was clearly done, by a -- well, I shouldn't say this. It is most likely done, by a left-leaning court clerk.

That person should lose their law license. They should never be able to practice again.

They should not be held up as a hero. And they will be, by the left. If Roberts does not do an investigation, and does not out this person, fire this person, and make sure that they lose their law license, then the Supreme Court is not safe. In anything that they do.

Now, we don't know for sure, that this is going to last. And that is the reason for the release. This is the opinion. It is very well thought out. I read all 90. Or 95 pages this morning. It's very, very well thought out.

It has -- there's just no way around it. It is very, very bulletproof, because it uses even Ginsburg's words about Roe vs. Wade.

And -- but it does not ban abortion. It gives it back to the people, where it says, it belongs.

STU: So just to set the foundations to this. You believe -- and I think we seem to know that it is, a legitimate document.

GLENN: It is a legitimate document.

STU: It did -- it was written by Samuel Alito.


STU: We know that it looks like five justices are voting for it. So we're siding with --

GLENN: Right before.

STU: Yeah. The three liberals were against it.

Then John Roberts was --

GLENN: Undecided.

But 5-4.

STU: It's 5-3. And him on the side. One of the reasons, of course, the speculation is if Roberts is trying to crack a third way. That will maybe uphold the Mississippi law. But maybe not completely uphold Roe vs. Wade.

This document clearly states, over and over again.

It is not. I think it actually throws Obamacare, into question. Although, it does say at the end of the document, this is not -- this -- this ruling, should not be interpreted to affect any other ruling.

But the way it's -- the way it's laid out, it -- it clearly should affect Obamacare.

We are not a legislature. We are not a political arm.

Our job is to interpret the law. And to see, based on the Constitution, if there is this right. And it takes apart, the right to privacy. All of this stuff. And says, that that is -- this was a dubious, at best, back in 1972.

STU: Egregiously wrong from the start, I believe was the quote. Which was very powerful. And it's been used multiple times, in abortion rulings in the past.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: The difference, of course, between Obamacare and Roe vs. Wade. Is Obamacare is at least the law that was passed.

GLENN: Yes, correct. Correct.

STU: In a somewhat legitimate fashion. Roe vs. Wade is made up.

GLENN: Correct. And purely from the Supreme Court.

STU: Right. They're saying here, states can come back and pass laws.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: That's how this should happen. So this is not going to eliminate abortion.

The far left, Bernie Sanders, for example, is arguing hard today. To -- to act that this is the justification to overturn the filibuster. And then you would be able to put a national law in.

GLENN: And you would also pack the court.

STU: You would also pack the court. And do all sorts of things. Where, this is it, for them. The left really wants children not to be born. So they'll do whatever they can on that.

GLENN: Well, Planned Parenthood said, abortion is sacred. Just so you know, when there are things that are sacred, you're into religious territory.

This, they believe, is sacred. So abortion is up on the altar. I think that's -- I think you're going to see the left completely unmasked now.

If they pack the court, that is the -- that is the last thing.

No government has ever recovered from the courts being packed. Check out Venezuela. What do they have? Like 47 judges?

Something like that. Yeah. They just started packing the court. And it's crazy. No government has ever survived that.

That is the road to totalitarianism.

STU: Thirty-two.

GLENN: Thirty-two. Yeah.

STU: Yes. And --

GLENN: And what did they start with?

STU: I don't have the whole list. But that's where they're at now.

GLENN: So the left is being unmasked. They want an end to the filibuster. Which means, they just want straight up, you know, 50 -- 51, 50. They don't want anybody to be able to slow things down. That's what our Constitution is all about.

Slowing things down.

When people complain, Congress isn't doing anything. That's what the Founders wanted. They didn't want your federal government, doing things.

What they wanted was your state government to do things. That's why this particular ruling, on Roe vs. Wade is so good. It passes it back to the states.

It says, this will never be settled. This has always been controversial.

And no one can force the people into an acceptable position.

STU: It goes on to say, in -- in the ruling -- the draft ruling. Again, we don't -- this is not passed or anything. Or, not put into effect.

But it goes on to say, before Roe vs. Wade, 30 states had decided upon a complete ban.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: And there had been some states, moving in the opposite direction. And this just upended that entire process. You know, there's another world where Roe vs. Wade doesn't exist. And legislatures just passed abortion rights in most of the states. I don't like that world. But that could have happened.

And probably would have happened in a bunch of states over the years. Instead, they tried to upend the process, and say, you're not allowed to have these restrictions on abortion.

And that is, what has made this issue so divisive. When it's life or death, it should be divisive. I have no problem fighting for this one. But there's an argument, where this could have gone a different direction. That's really a good chunk of focus of Alito in the ruling.

He says, look, I --

GLENN: We have no credibility, if we legislate from the bench.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Especially on things that are this divisive.

STU: It basically -- he criticizes the previous court and says, hey. Basically what they did was, hey, you know, this is -- this is a thing that's tucked aside. So we'll just settle this one now. And we just stick with what we say here. But that's just not how it works. That's not how our system of government works.

GLENN: Right. So there are a lot of things in this. We'll give it to you. But Mississippi one.

STU: Not, yeah. I am not of the opinion, that you can count these chickens. And I know when you're talking about abortion, chickens.

Hatching is a big thing.

STU: I want this thing to hatch. The reason this was released, is to put enormous, impossible pressure on these justices.

GLENN: This is anarchy.

STU: It's potentially to encourage George Floyd riots around the country, to change someone's mind. God only knows. I mean, if we have anyone that is a high-level security person, that is not guarding a Supreme Court justice today. They need to be reassigned to that job. Because what the left would do, to have this right, to end so many lives. You can't overstate. You can't overstate, what end they would go to, to try to stop this.

And now they think it's a done deal, but something could be country to prevent it. I fear for all these people.

GLENN: I do too. I do too.

STU: Remembering people, on the left, are insane.

They will do anything to fight for the right, to make sure these children don't live for some freaking bizarre reason, I'll never understand.

GLENN: Can I imagine, had they gone the other way? If it were leaked. I mean, I can't imagine that there was anybody that would do that.

STU: Yeah. Because there's some speculation that somebody on the right did it.

GLENN: Really? Politico.

STU: Yes. And that the argument is, one, that Alito has lost somebody. He might be losing somebody's wavering at the five. And he wants to put pressure on them, to know that they were on the end Roe vs. Wade side.

And let's say Kavanaugh. And Kavanaugh is wavering, and he wants to put pressure on him to say, hey, no. You stick with this. Everyone is going to know, you changed your mind. That's one idea.

GLENN: Right. And, you know what, investigation. FBI. Do you trust the FBI?

An investigation needs to be done. John Roberts needs to call for it. And we need to know who did it. Whoever did it. Whatever side. They're wrong.

That's not the way we deal with things here. If it was someone on the right, you were wrong. You were wrong to do it.

That's not how we do business here. You do not influence the Supreme Court, or threaten the Supreme Court.

You don't do it. Period.

STU: And the idea that the right would do this. The other theory being floated out there, is that conservatives wanted people to kind of be ready for this happening. So it's a sort of -- like they're putting it out there early, so it doesn't affect the elections. There's no way that someone in the Supreme Court would risk this blowing up by leaking it on the right, I don't think. If they thought that they had lost someone. Which is not the news. In the political reporting, they say, this standard of five justices, to overturn Roe vs. Wade, is at least in effect, until last week.

So this was written back in September. It was circulated in February. But as of last week, this was still holding.

So we don't know if something has changed. And that's why it got leaked. I don't believe it. I think it's somebody on the left, to try to get people to change their mind.

GLENN: It was so interesting, how fast, that giant crowd, cut around that Supreme Court, isn't it?

STU: That was really quick, yeah.

GLENN: Really fast. Interesting.

STU: A lot of people live right around there. They had signs.

GLENN: Walking their dogs.

STU: And they brought their signs on the walk.

GLENN: What's weird. They all brought their dogs apparently, which we couldn't see. And their signs for that casual walk. And they were all chanting, pack the court.

Just again, you are going to see the left, fully unmasked. They are not interested in a republic. They are not interested in the rule of law.

They were screening and shouting and chanting, pack the court. This may be -- this may be the place where we separate. And I'll go into that, coming up in just a second.

I think this is where -- I think this is where we might come to blows. And I don't mean that, you know, we're going to have violence on both sides on the street. I think the left is going to use this. This is their catalyst, to do I think what they did before. They just burn our cities to the ground.

And this is on something that I'm willing to die on my sword for. I don't know about you. But I think this is -- this is the most righteous cause, to stand up for.

You know, protecting our children, from all of these lies in our school. Righteous.

Standing up for the right, for babies to be born. And to stop killing. Righteous.

To stand up, against court packing, righteous.

We can talk about tax rates, all we want. And they're important. But there's nothing like this. I think we can morally justify doing every show, every day about this. Until it stops.

Worldwide we're talking about something like a million people were aborted.

GLENN: I want you to know, the only reason why Stu and I were talking about this, because as men, we know now that we can have a baby. We do have an undeniable voice at the table.

STU: That will have died out real fast last night. I was listening to CNN as they were breaking this story, because I torture myself.

And they immediately -- the first act -- what this shows, is that men and women are not equal in this country. Now, I don't know, it may show a lot of things. I don't know how it shows that men and women aren't equal. Men also wouldn't have the right to have an abortion. So I don't know what you're talking about.

GLENN: Men can have a baby now.

STU: And then immediately, it was, you know what, it was these men. They don't understand. Because they can't have children. It's like, wait a minute. What happened to your programming from last week?

Remember of all those lessons you were telling us about how men can have children. Remember how everybody had to put their pronouns on everything, because we didn't even know what genders were.

Now, all of a sudden again, it's the most important thing. Now women are once again, we can tell who they are.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: We're now, again, able to identify women this week. And this week, because it's convenient to their outcomes, once again, women are vitally important. And their special needs are very important. And men can't understand them. Because they don't have -- they can't have babies. They don't have reproductive organs this week.

It's so transparent and pathetic.

GLENN: All right. Back with more. Coming up in just a second. Words from Alan Dershowitz.

And five observations and outlooks from the Supreme Court's likely reversal of Roe and Casey, Daniel Horowitz coming up.


How the WHO's 'pandemic treaty' could CONTROL governments

On May 22nd, the World Health Assembly — which is the governing body of The World Health Organization — will meet in Switzerland to discuss next steps for its ‘pandemic treaty [and its] quest to use public health to expand The WHO’s power over sovereign states,’ Daniel Horowitz reports for TheBlaze. He explains how certain amendments to be added to this treaty could ‘allow the director-general of the WHO to declare a public health emergency in a country and unilaterally coerce its citizens to take certain actions.’ The far-left and global elite continue to destroy our sovereignty, Glenn says, and this is just one more step toward their desired global government.

Read more:


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I read some stuff this morning. I've been doing some research on what's happening with the WHO. And I read their stuff today, that will make your head explode. And is really evil and important.

But let me give you this today, from -- from Daniel Horowitz at TheBlaze. States must preemptively nullify any WHO international pandemic regulation.

I'm going to read it verbatim because it's just so well-written. And now is the time, that things are shifting. We're going to. There's going to be a New World Order out there. And we've got to lead it. And we have to unite the rest of the free world in doing it. That's Joe Biden. March 21st, 2022.

Any Republican that is running without mentioning your intent to fight the global pandemic treaty or regulations, might as well run as a Democrat. This is really super important, and it is beginning to happen next week. On May 22nd, the world health assembly, the governing body of the World Health Organization, is going to meet in Geneva Switzerland to discuss the next step in its pandemic treaty. And the quest to use public health to expand the WHO's power over sovereign states. Representatives from 193 nations, including the US, will be attending the only country, not invited is Taiwan.

Gee, I wonder why. So what is this treaty? On January 24th, 2022, the director general of the WHO explained the treaty was a priority, to urgently strength the WHO, as leading and the director authority on global health, at the center of the global health architecture. He laid out the guiding principle of this plot. We, quote, all want a world in which science triumphs over misinformation. Solidarity triumphs over division. And equity is a reality, not an aspiration. He said, we are one world, we have one health. We are one WHO.

Now, this has not been announced. Biden has not even spoken about it. They are deathly quiet about this. But they're going to be approving amendments. The proposed amendments are essentially going to allow the director general of the WHO to declare public health emergencies in any country. And unilaterally coerce its citizens to take certain actions. Here's one of the amendments, a critical section from article nine. The WHO shall consult with and attempt to obtain verification from the state party, whose territory the event is allegedly occurring. But this is the way it's going to read. Now, WHO may take into account, reports from sources of other than notifications or consultations -- consultations shall assess these reports, according to established principles. And then communicate information on the event, to the state party, in whose territory the event is allegedly occurring.

Now, they have scratched out, before taking any action based on reports, the WHO shall consult with and attempt to obtain verification from the state party. That's all gone. They're taking that out.

So WHO gets information, has reports, and they can act without verifying with the president or anybody else.

Why would you be erasing the requirement, for the WHO to consult with the government?

Number four. If the state party does not accept the offer of collaboration within 48 hours, WHO, it used to say, May. It now says, WHO shall -- when justified by the magnitude of public health risk, immediately share with other state parties, the information available, whilst encouraging the state party to accept the offer of collaboration, by the WHO. It used to say there, while taking into accounts the views of the state party concerned.

So they're erasing all of our sovereignty. This is going to be another thing. They're going to say, is a conspiracy theory. It is not. You can look it all up. It is the world health agenda. From the World Health Organization. They are meeting in Geneva, on May 22nd. So that's next week. They are intentionally quiet on this.

Because they know the power. Now, we also know what the WHO is. You remember, when everybody was saying, we have to get out of the WHO.

They're just a tool of China. Why would you say that?

Forget that I mentioned that Taiwan is the only country that is not invited to this in Geneva.

PAT: Yeah. That's completely -- completely irrelevant.

GLENN: Completely. Amen, brother.

PAT: I don't even know why you brought it up in the first place.

GLENN: Thank you. Thank you.

PAT: It's a good thing they weren't actually -- I wish we weren't invited to it.

GLENN: Well, I will tell you this. Another reason why Donald Trump. They fought so hard to keep him out: Because he wouldn't have --

PAT: He sure wouldn't have. That's exactly right.

GLENN: He wouldn't have empowered the WHO.

PAT: Well, he took us out of the WHO.

GLENN: That's exactly right. And this president is not only putting us back, they're taking away our sovereignty.

And so it's one more piece to the global governance of the left. Warning.


Kamala repeats herself 5 TIMES in 30 seconds…

Kamala Harris, America's no. 2 in command, just spoke at a climate change conference. So how'd you think she did? Was she eloquent and able to lay out a vision for a better world? Probably not, but check this video out and let's all find out.


Right vs. Left: The Time for Compromise Is OVER | Jesse Kelly | Ep 146

The Left worked for decades to get control, and now they have it: “Every cultural pillar has been infected and taken over,” Jesse Kelly warns Glenn. So, it’s time to get out of the stands and onto the field. On this episode of "The Glenn Beck Podcast," the host of the nationally syndicated "Jesse Kelly Show" joins with a blunt message for the Right: The time for compromise is gone. This system that’s raising young people who hate America can’t be salvaged, and while taking back Congress in 2022 would be nice, LOCAL victories are what really matter. But this won’t be a quick fight. Thankfully, Jesse has some solutions, and they involve Play-Doh …


Where are our STANDARDS, America?

Since when are we the people that throw our hands up and accept the new normal?

We're the people, that despite all odds, we took it on. We didn't settle for less. And that's what they're telling you to do now, settle for less.

No. That's not who we are. Why would we be willing to sit around and wait for the government to fix it?

Don't lower your standards. That's un-American. We don't lower our standards. We raise standards. And that is our legacy.