A US Supreme Court justice openly made fun of Prince Harry for once again interjecting himself into American politics by criticising the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which he likened to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
In a barely disguised jab at the US Supreme Court, the Duke of Sussex last week used a “virtue-signaling” speech at the UN to denounce the “global assault on democracy and freedom.”
Justice Samuel Alito singled out Prince Harry, along with Boris Johnson, Justin Trudeau, and Emmanuel Macron, during his speech in Rome for opposing the opinion.
To laughter, the justice exclaimed, “What really hurt me, what really hurt me, was when the Duke of Sussex addressed the United Nations and seemed to compare the decision, whose name may not be spoken, with the Russian attack on Ukraine.”
Harry spoke to a mostly empty UN General Assembly on Tuesday as part of a celebration of Nelson Mandela, bringing up both the war in Ukraine and Roe v. Wade, which returns decisions regarding abortion rights to US states.
“We are witnessing a global assault on democracy and freedom, the cores of Mandela’s life,” he declared. “From the horrific war in Ukraine to the rolling back of constitutional rights in the US.”
Following the Supreme Court’s shocking decision to reverse the 1973 ruling, the Duke’s wife Meghan, who travelled with him to the UN and is rumoured to harbour political ambitions, described how the Duke had a “gutteral” reaction.
The Sussexes have made a number of high-profile interventions in recent years, from Meghan’s personal lobbying campaign in favour of paid parental leave to the Sussexes’ call for voters to “reject hate speech” before the 2020 US presidential election, which was obviously directed at Donald Trump.
In his speech, Alito, one of the most conservative justices on the Supreme Court, also made fun of Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Macron while saving a special jab for Prime Minister Johnson.
This term, he said, “I had the honour of writing the only Supreme Court decision in the institution’s history that has been criticised by a whole string of foreign leaders who felt perfectly fine commenting on American law.”
In a lighthearted allusion to the PM’s intentions to resign following a Tory party rebellion, Alito continued, “One of these was former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, but he paid the price.”
On July 21, Alito addressed a conference on religious freedom held in Rome by the University of Notre Dame Law School. The video was published online by Notre Dame last night.
Harry and the Duchess of Sussex have engaged in American politics before, including in previous speeches.
They urged American voters to “reject hate speech, misinformation, and online negativity” in “the most important election of our lives” during a Time 100 video in September 2020.
Ms. Markle urged people to vote in the November midterm elections and informed activist Gloria Steinem in June that she is willing to travel to Washington, DC, to take part in protests against the abortion ruling.
In a Vogue interview, Meghan also urged men to express their outrage over the overturning of Roe v. Wade by being “more vocal.”
Members of the royal family are expected to be politically apolitical, and the Sussexes made a promise to uphold Her Majesty’s values in everything they do when they stepped down from their positions.
However, Miranda Barbot, a senior advisor to former President Barack Obama who was crucial to his successful reelection campaign in 2012, was just hired by Meghan and Harry.
Since she and Harry emigrated from Britain, there has been much speculation about Meghan’s political aspirations, including assertions that she would “seriously consider” running for president if her husband gave up his regal title.
One of the reasons the Duchess kept her American citizenship when she married into the Royal Family, according to a friend who spoke to Vanity Fair two years ago, was to give her the option to pursue a career in politics.
The duchess was recently invited to join the Democratic Party by President Biden’s sister Valerie, 76, who also said that she would “of course” be a strong candidate for the presidency.
In an interview with Daily Mail Royals, Tom Bower, the author of a new book on Meghan and Harry, said: “I think that she does see her future as possibly a congresswoman for California.”
She has a dual problem, he continued. The first is that it pays very poorly, and Meghan needs a lot of money to live, and the second is that political battles require a lot of grit. There are many rivals you must contend with.
Additionally, he disclosed that Hillary Clinton, a former presidential candidate, had made Meghan a close mentor.
She is said to have set up the couple’s charitable endeavours.
It was revealed yesterday that Harry has been fighting the Home Office in his native country for police protection while his family is in the country.
The case is thought to have so far cost the taxpayer £100,000.
After being informed that he would no longer receive the “same degree” of personal protective security when visiting from the US, The Duke has been suing the department.
His representatives have previously stated that he wants to fly Meghan from the US and bring their kids Archie and Lilibet to visit, but they are ‘unable to return to his home’ due to the level of danger there.
The Home Office is said to have spent £90,094.79 on the case between September 2021 and May of this year.
According to The Sun, this amount is said to include £55,254 for the government’s legal department, £34,824 for attorneys, and £16.55 for couriers.
Since May, there have been two sessions before the High Court in London, and it is anticipated that the final fee will be more than £10,000.
And after a judge permitted Harry’s legal team to pursue a portion of his claim for a judicial review of the Home Office’s decision, that amount will increase even further.
The Home Office, a Whitehall organisation led by Priti Patel, has already stated that if Harry’s High Court case is unsuccessful, the Home Office will be required to pay its legal fees back, which would lower the cost to the taxpayer.
Schillings, the Duke of Sussex’s UK attorneys, and the Home Office have all been contacted by MailOnline for comment.
In the meantime, Samantha, Meghan’s estranged half-sister, and the Sussexes are engaged in a second court dispute in America.
Samantha is suing Meghan for allegedly telling a “rags to riches” story on Oprah and for remarks she made in Omid Scobie’s book Finding Freedom, which was written by Meghan’s close friend.
She has claimed that despite Meghan technically having two half-siblings, it is dishonest for Meghan to claim she grew up as an only child because that is how she feels.
The Duchess’s attorneys responded that she was raised as an only child, but that is just a “feeling” and not a “fact.”
It is difficult to think of a more private and individual experience than how one perceives their own childhood.
The context of the statement, where Ms. Winfrey questioned Meghan about her “connection” with Plaintiff—whom Ms. Winfrey referred to as her “half-sister on her father’s side”—is wholly ignored by Plaintiff’s objection.
It is clear that Meghan wasn’t intending for her comment that she “grew up as an only child” to be taken as proof positive that she had no biological siblings or half-siblings.
She also ignores Samantha’s complaints about information in Omid Scobie’s book Finding Freedom, arguing that Meghan cannot be held accountable for it since she did not author it.
“Meghan did not make the statements; therefore, she is exempt from liability.” That much is clear,’ assert her attorneys.