WHAT OTHERS SAY: For or against abortion, everyone should be against the leak

It’s not at all clear what was the motive behind the famous leak.

Some said the very early draft of a ruling on abortion rights could have been released to create a political firestorm around the issue, as if the leak represents the ultimate opinion of a divided U.S. Supreme Court — and as if there isn’t going to be a firestorm if the high court overturns the Roe v. Wade precedent of 1973.

Others argued that the leak might have been intended to make it more difficult for the five justices who seemed — and that’s an important word — likely to uphold the sharp restrictions under debate in a case brought because of new Mississippi law.

We don’t know. Chief Justice John Roberts is clearly intent on finding out the leaker. We hope that he succeeds.

Why? Because “seemed” is a vital word. The process by which the justices work should be one in which ideas and their consequences can be debated in the context of the law. Those conversations can lead justices to change their positions, or seeming positions in oral arguments.

The very early draft should not be taken as a final position, as legal observers of left and right agree.

We like the conclusion of Lynn Fitch, attorney general of Mississippi: “We will let the Supreme Court speak for itself and wait for the court’s official opinion.”

Good advice.