POLL: Who leaked the draft SCOTUS abortion ruling?

[camille70]

If you're curious how the SCOTUS investigation is going or what they concluded, well too bad.

“The Court has no comment.”

My money is on Ginni Thomas as the leaker, followed by a pro-life staffer.

 

[Pommer]

If you're curious how the SCOTUS investigation is going or what they concluded, well too bad.

“The Court has no comment.”

My money’s on Ginny Thomas!
Edit: GMTA!

 

[cow451]

If you're curious how the SCOTUS investigation is going or what they concluded, well too bad.

“The Court has no comment.”

That means it would be to embarrassing to admit it was the spouse of a Justice.

 

[SimplyMe]

That means it would be to embarrassing to admit it was the spouse of a Justice.

It would be worse than embarrassing, it could be evidence of a conflict of interest. There have been cases where Ginni Thomas was working for one of the parties with a suit before the Supreme Court. If it was shown that Ginni Thomas had access to decisions ahead of time, particularly if she was talking with Clarence about the cases, it could largely prove that Justice Thomas had conflicts of interest and did not recuse himself.

 

[durangodawood]

This could all be solved if the Senate held a Ginni Thomas confirmation hearing for her position as co-justice with her spouse.

 

[DaisyDay]

She may come under investigation for her part in the attempted coup.

 

[hislegacy]

It is a abortion rights person on the left who thought illegally leaking the document would fire up their base and there would be protests in the streets - there was - protests at the Justices homes - there is and threats of physical harm to individual justices - there is.

Mission accomplished, but it was not enough to intimidate them into changing their position.

 

[DaisyDay]

It is a abortion rights person on the left who thought illegally leaking the document would fire up their base and there would be protests in the streets - there was - protests at the Justices homes - there is and threats of physical harm to individual justices - there is.

Mission accomplished, but it was not enough to intimidate them into changing their position.

I love how confident you are in the absence of known facts.

 

[hislegacy]

I love how confident you are in the absence of known facts.

Sort of like Ginni Thomas having a role is Jan 6? That level of confidence in the absence of known fact?

 

[essentialsaltes]

It is a abortion rights person on the left who thought illegally leaking the document would fire up their base

We've been through this. 'Firing up the base' would be better nearer the election. Releasing it early allows more time to cool off.

 

[hislegacy]

We've been through this. 'Firing up the base' would be better nearer the election. Releasing it early allows more time to cool off.

Feel free to repeat it as often as you'd like, it does not mean you are correct, nor does it mean I agree with your assessment.

 

[DaisyDay]

Sort of like Ginni Thomas having a role is Jan 6? That level of confidence in the absence of known fact?

You don't know about her hand in it?
Report: Texts show Ginni Thomas pushed Meadows to help overturn 2020 election

Texts Thomas and Meadows

 

[camille70]

You don't know about her hand in it?
Report: Texts show Ginni Thomas pushed Meadows to help overturn 2020 election

Texts Thomas and Meadows

She left breadcrumbs via emails and texts all over the country.

 

[DaisyDay]

People are saying that it may have been Alito and that this was not the first time.
NYT: Former Anti-Abortion Leader Alleges Another Supreme Court Breach

In a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and in interviews with The New York Times, the Rev. Rob Schenck said he was told the outcome of the 2014 case weeks before it was announced. He used that information to prepare a public relations push, records show, and he said that at the last minute he tipped off the president of Hobby Lobby, the craft store chain owned by Christian evangelicals that was the winning party in the case.

Both court decisions were triumphs for conservatives and the religious right. Both majority opinions were written by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. But the leak of the draft opinion overturning the constitutional right to abortion was disclosed in the news media by Politico, setting off a national uproar. With Hobby Lobby, according to Mr. Schenck, the outcome was shared with only a handful of advocates.

Senate panel reviewing alleged 2014 Supreme Court leak of Alito opinion

The Senate Judiciary Committee is reviewing the possible leak of a 2014 Supreme Court decision authored by Justice Samuel Alito after a New York Times article suggested the justice or his wife disc…

thehill.com

The Senate can look into it, but there's not much they can do if it is Justice Alito because of separation of powers.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the chairman of the committee, said in a statement Saturday night that the allegations were serious and “highlight once again the inexcusable ‘Supreme Court loophole’ in federal judicial ethics rules.”

“It is unacceptable that members of the highest court in the land are exempted from the judicial code of ethics when wealthy special interests are spending millions of dollars in dark money to influence the Court’s decisions,” Durbin said.

 

[SimplyMe]

People are saying that it may have been Alito and that this was not the first time.
NYT: Former Anti-Abortion Leader Alleges Another Supreme Court Breach

Senate panel reviewing alleged 2014 Supreme Court leak of Alito opinion

The Senate Judiciary Committee is reviewing the possible leak of a 2014 Supreme Court decision authored by Justice Samuel Alito after a New York Times article suggested the justice or his wife disc…

thehill.com

The Senate can look into it, but there's not much they can do if it is Justice Alito because of separation of powers.

Congress could impeach Justice Alito, though I doubt they could get enough votes.

 

[DaisyDay]

Congress could impeach Justice Alito, though I doubt they could get enough votes.

If it wasn't illegal - I don't think that that was established - then on what grounds? General unfitness? That would open a can of worms.

 

[SimplyMe]

If it wasn't illegal - I don't think that that was established - then on what grounds? General unfitness? That would open a can of worms.

It doesn't need to be "illegal" actions for someone to be impeached. The only Supreme Court justice impeached, the reasons given, "refusing to dismiss biased jurors and of excluding or limiting defense witnesses in two politically sensitive cases."

 

[Fantine]

The recent revelations about Alito would seem to indicate that he never had any problem discussing ongoing cases with lobbyists and friends over the dinner table.

Congress is trying to pass a bill requiring that justices be subject to the same ethics rules that other members of government are. It certainly seems reasonable to expect.

But there's a phrase Catholics use to describe temptation--avoiding sin and the near occasions of sin. It would seem as if the ethics rule should require that justices would need to avoid socializing with lobbyists entirely, and that would be a good thing.

They should avoid the kinds of free hunting trips that Justices Scalia was at when he passed away.

They should avoid being brought to fundraisers for special interest groups, because tickets are often sold to those who want to bend the justices' ears.

Their spouses should be barred from employment that would present a conflict of interest for them.

The ethics rules should be well-thought out and strong, and the names of Congressmen who voted against requiring Supreme Court justices follow ethics rule should be widely publicized. Voters should know that Congressmen have the power to restrict this behavior--and if they are voting against "ethics" what does it mean they are "for?"

 

[wing2000]

I agree. One would hope the justices would hold themselves to a higher standard given their position. It's time to hold them accountable.

“It is unacceptable that members of the highest court in the land are exempted from the judicial code of ethics when wealthy special interests are spending millions of dollars in dark money to influence the Court’s decisions,” Durbin said.

 

[Pommer]

The leaked (and largely unchanged) decision is an historic document, the overturning of the Court’s own ruling of nearly fifty years. Of course it was going to circulate beforehand…it just got “out” somehow.
Yup.