On Tuesday night, demonstrators gathered in front of the Supreme Court in Washington.

Abortion rights “now and forever,” they cried.

And: "No turning back".

But there were also a few who stood a little apart, who were hopeful about the news that was spread over the Internet late Monday evening: "I've been praying for this day for a long time," said a woman.

Majid Sattar

Political correspondent for North America based in Washington.

  • Follow I follow

The portal "Politico" had managed a real "scoop": The Supreme Court is preparing to issue the landmark judgment "Roe v.

Wade,” which says the right to an abortion derives from the 14th amendment and privacy protections, the report said.

This was based on the draft of the reasons for the judgment that had been sent to the portal.

The nine constitutional judges are currently deliberating on the legality of a Mississippi abortion law that bans abortions after the 15th week.

The verdict is expected in June.

Piercing the design was a monstrous process.

The reasoning was written by Samuel Alito, who, as the portal further reported, was supported by four conservative judges: Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

The three liberal judges are currently writing their dissenting opinions.

It is unclear how John Roberts behaves.

The "Chief Justice" is considered to be moderately conservative - he has repeatedly voted with his liberal colleagues.

Actually, Roberts' vote is irrelevant, because the majority seems to stand.

But does she really?

Why was the draft leaked to the public?

The judges traditionally have an extremely trusting relationship with one another, regardless of their ideological background.

One sees oneself as the state authority that stays out of party politics.

"Equal Justice Under Law" is written on the pediment of the marble temple.

Here, law and justice are fought for – in free debate in a protected space.

Instrumentalising the public is a taboo that the judges' scientific staff actually respect.

Alito formulates extremely sharply

Weeks ago it was speculated that Roberts might be inclined to rule Mississippi's abortion law constitutional without "Roe v.

Wade" to overturn completely, so to speak, so as not to endanger the legal peace.

It was also said that he was trying to convince at least one of his conservative colleagues of this compromise.

That would have been enough.

Was the leak intended to prevent just that and tie the five judges to the first draft?

The historic opportunity presented by Donald Trump, who nominated three judges with the explicit wish to change the legal situation, should not be wasted, according to the underlying idea.

That's a theory.

Another assumes that the document was punctured from the left side.

The motive could have been a scandal, so to speak, as an election campaign aid for the Democrats, who are finding it difficult to mobilize for the congressional elections in November.

For years, female votes in the political center have been particularly hard fought.