A draft opinion has never been leaked before in the history of the court.
Obviously the intent was intimidation - whoever leaked it knew that they could not convince any of the Justices to change their stance so they attempted to get the abortion lobby to do it for them. I think, as Alito wrote in his draft, the Justices won't pay much mind to public opinion, and will do what they believe to be their legal duty.
I also think, however, that this sets a bad precedent. Like the impeachments of Trump guaranteed that every future Democratic president for the foreseeable future will be impeached regardless of the merits of the impeachment, this too means that if there is ever a decision that would come down like Obergefell or Sebelius that would piss off the right, draft decisions will get leaked.
It's a shitty day for the Supreme Court, for judicial ethics (I don't believe that a clerk sent this out without a blessing from one of the three), and for judicial independence.
My only hope is that the Justices refuse to back down to the pressure of the abortion lobby and the media and double down on this decision to show they will not be intimidated into changing their minds or forsaking their legal duty.
I see the distinction of
1) Court is going to have a ruling for, against, mixed
2) The actual deliberations of the court with the mixture of justices and why they are going to do it
3) A rough draft opinion and who is tentatively voting for that opinion
I see the distinction between 2 and 3 is a difference without a real difference, unless one wants to go analytical here. 2 happened with Dred Scott as well as other court cases of that time and after. It is nothing new under the sun, but hey some semblance of things do change if you want to rest your hat on that specific hat rack.
———
As for intent, no I do not see it as obvious and there are a dozen different theories out there and it may never be known. Who stands to benefit is precisely why the court is not just balls and strikes but is a political branch as you pointed out in Sebilius court case.
Likewise while not Obergefell but the earlier 1980s case, Bowers v. Hardwick which was about Gay Sodomy, it was 5-4 decision where the states can make Sodomy illegal. Justice Powell one of the 5 judges said at the time he did not know any gay people, he also asked his clerks, one of the clerks was queer and kept his mouth shut for he was closeted, and 4 years after this case was final Powell said he regretted his decision.
But the court is sacrosanct don’t you know! Except I disagree and stop using the word sacred / sacer / sacro for a man dirties the word when one says such nonsense. The court is not inviolable just like history itself is not innocent but full of mess and complications.
*NM*