POLL: Who leaked the draft SCOTUS abortion ruling?

[Ana the Ist]

These few federal judges gave their reason for doing so as 'cancel culture'. It had nothing to do with this leak.

Well I doubt they would say that they suspect a Yale clerk was the leak. After all, that's not a great reason to reject applications.

Your conclusion does not seem probable.

I don't think it's any more or less plausible than any of the other guesses. If it was a right wing source, I would expect them to use a right wing outlet for the reaction of "locking in" a full reversal.

Which as far as I can tell, is the only possible option other than allowing RvW to stand. I don't see any room for the judges to remove it "partially".

 

[tz620q]

Well I doubt they would say that they suspect a Yale clerk was the leak. After all, that's not a great reason to reject applications.




I don't think it's any more or less plausible than any of the other guesses. If it was a right wing source, I would expect them to use a right wing outlet for the reaction of "locking in" a full reversal.

Which as far as I can tell, is the only possible option other than allowing RvW to stand. I don't see any room for the judges to remove it "partially".

Actually, since Roe v Wade invented a "constitutional" right to abortion out of whole cloth stretching a right to privacy between a doctor and patient to an unrecognizable level, I think this court could have "invented" almost any scenario. The most reasonable one was actually what they did, which was to say that it is not up to the Supreme Court to determine when life begins. The "law of the land" is made up by legislatures and not by the judicial branch. Unfortunately at this time our federal government can't even seem to handle the simple things, much less a divisive issue like abortion. So the states have stepped in because at least the state legislatures aren't paralyzed by politics.

 

[Pommer]

Actually, since Roe v Wade invented a "constitutional" right to abortion out of whole cloth stretching a right to privacy between a doctor and patient to an unrecognizable level, I think this court could have "invented" almost any scenario. The most reasonable one was actually what they did, which was to say that it is not up to the Supreme Court to determine when life begins. The "law of the land" is made up by legislatures and not by the judicial branch. Unfortunately at this time our federal government can't even seem to handle the simple things, much less a divisive issue like abortion. So the states have stepped in because at least the state legislatures aren't paralyzed by politics.

Does then, the state “own” its citizens, to the point of telling those citizens what medical procedures are “allowed”?

 

[tz620q]

Does then, the state “own” its citizens, to the point of telling those citizens what medical procedures are “allowed”?

I know it might rankle some people's sense of total autonomy; but one of the prime purposes of government is to define acceptable and unacceptable behavior of their citizens. By continuing to live in that society and having the benefits provided by it is to accept this restraint on complete freedom.

 

[Pommer]

I know it might rankle some people's sense of total autonomy; but one of the prime purposes of government is to define acceptable and unacceptable behavior of their citizens. By continuing to live in that society and having the benefits provided by it is to accept this restraint on complete freedom.

“What say we get rid of this government-fellow?”—our anarchist friends

You cannot use a government to “shape society”; it works in the exact opposite direction.

 

[tz620q]

“What say we get rid of this government-fellow?”—our anarchist friends

You cannot use a government to “shape society”; it works in the exact opposite direction.

Since this thread is about the SCOTUS, I suppose we could say that the people somehow shape the judicial branch; but I think that is a very tenuous claim, especially about SCOTUS. They are probably the most protected from the vagaries of popular opinion; purposefully by the method they are chosen, the tenure they are given, and the obscure points of law that they deal in that are not fully understood by the populace.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Since this thread is about the SCOTUS, I suppose we could say that the people somehow shape the judicial branch; but I think that is a very tenuous claim, especially about SCOTUS. They are probably the most protected from the vagaries of popular opinion; purposefully by the method they are chosen, the tenure they are given, and the obscure points of law that they deal in that are not fully understood by the populace.

Actually the thread is about a leak from SCOTUS, not their composition, politics, or rulings

 

[tz620q]

Actually the thread is about a leak from SCOTUS, not their composition, politics, or rulings

I was responding to Pommer's comment, "You cannot use a government to “shape society”; it works in the exact opposite direction." and trying to relate that to the leak and what happened afterwards. There was concern at the time that the leak and subsequent protests were used to try to influence the justices. This seemed to relate to his comment on society trying to shape government. It doesn't seem to have worked and it appears that SCOTUS was intentionally formed to isolate it from public opinion.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Supreme Court says it is unable to identify the person who leaked draft of abortion ruling​

The court also consulted Michael Chertoff, who was Homeland Security secretary during the administration of President George W. Bush. Chertoff wrote in a separate statement that he had recommended several measures the court could take to improve security, including restrictions on circulating hard copies of sensitive documents.

Chertoff said he had reviewed the investigation and concluded that it was conducted thoroughly.

"At this time, I cannot identify any additional useful investigative measures," he said.

--

Exclusive: Supreme Court did not disclose financial relationship with expert brought in to review leak probe​

CNN has learned from sources familiar with the arrangements that the court in recent years has privately contracted with The Chertoff Group for security assessments, some broadly covering justices’ safety and some specifically related to Covid-19 protocols at the court itself.

The estimated payments to Chertoff’s risk assessment firm, for consultations that extended over several months and involved a review of the justices’ homes, reached at least $1 million. The exact amount of money paid could not be determined. Supreme Court contracts are not covered by federal public disclosure rules and elude tracking on public databases.

The court’s decision to keep secret the prior arrangements with Chertoff, whose professional path has intersected over the years with Chief Justice John Roberts and other court conservatives, as it used him for a seal of approval, adds to controversy over the leak investigation itself.

... Chertoff later took a turn through private practice and in 2003 joined Alito on the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals.

I'm not sure there's a lot of there there, but it certainly does nothing to dispel the idea that a bunch of Ivy League conservatives are scratching each other's backs in this investigation.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Justice Alito says he has ‘pretty good idea’ who was behind leak of draft abortion opinion​

But it's a secret.

 

[Fantine]

Justice Alito has shown himself to be such a partisan extremist that I wouldn't believe his attempts to cast aspersions on his colleagues.

The leak could have come as easily from pro-life staffers who were afraid that a conservative justice might backpedal or try to get the decision modified. Leaking it was forcing them to stay committed.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Justice Alito says he has ‘pretty good idea’ who was behind leak of draft abortion opinion​

But it's a secret.

The leaker is elusive. Alito can not see him, except for fleeting glimpses in the strange window above the bathroom sink. How will he ever catch the leaker?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Justice Alito has shown himself to be such a partisan extremist that I wouldn't believe his attempts to cast aspersions on his colleagues.

The leak could have come as easily from pro-life staffers who were afraid that a conservative justice might backpedal or try to get the decision modified. Leaking it was forcing them to stay committed.

As much as I can imagine that story appeals to a certain crowd....


Why would it force them to commit? There's literally no penalty for not committing.

 

[Desk trauma]

But it's a secret.

Us plebs are unworthy to know the inner workings of our betters.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Us plebs are unworthy to know the inner workings of our betters.

Isn't enough to know that Alito personally assures us it wasn't a conservative?

 

[Desk trauma]

Isn't enough to know that Alito personally assures us it wasn't a conservative?

That we dare ask besmirches the honor of the justices.

 

[Arcangl86]

As much as I can imagine that story appeals to a certain crowd....


Why would it force them to commit? There's literally no penalty for not committing.

There was no penalty in a legal sense, that's true. But my understanding of the reasoning is that some justices might have thought the ruling went too far, but once it was out there supported it because they didn't want it to appear as if the Court bowed to political pressure to change it. IMO, Roe probably was going to go down regardless, but in a less sweeping manner if Roberts and one of the others had managed to convince Alito otherwise.

 

[Pommer]

Justice Alito says he has ‘pretty good idea’ who was behind leak of draft abortion opinion​

But it's a secret.

If Murder She Wrote taught me anything, it is that the accuser is the prime suspect (especially if they’re a guest star).

 

[SimplyMe]

If Murder She Wrote taught me anything, it is that the accuser is the prime suspect (especially if they’re a guest star).

I thought his claiming that it would be stupid for one of the Conservative justices to leak the information because they got death threats to be a strange reasoning -- how would you know, or even think that, in advance? It actually did sound, at least to me, like someone who thought the leak would provide reinforcement for their decision from the most vocal of citizens (both sides have tended to get pretty animated about abortion) and, since it didn't work, just turned that reasoning around to blame the other side.