Investigating the SCOTUS leak
-
@Copper said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
@Horace said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
Invitations to The View, Good Morning America, and jobs at law firms, especially those specializing in women's issues, would abound.
For the next 99 years these interviews will take place in a federal prison.
If a law was demonstrably broken here then I would have assumed the FBI would be on the case rather than an internal SCOTUS investigation.
-
@Copper said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
@Horace said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
Invitations to The View, Good Morning America, and jobs at law firms, especially those specializing in women's issues, would abound.
For the next 99 years these interviews will take place in a federal prison.
If a law was demonstrably broken here then I would have assumed the FBI would be on the case rather than an internal SCOTUS investigation.
@Horace said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
@Copper said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
@Horace said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
Invitations to The View, Good Morning America, and jobs at law firms, especially those specializing in women's issues, would abound.
For the next 99 years these interviews will take place in a federal prison.
If a law was demonstrably broken here then I would have assumed the FBI would be on the case rather than an internal SCOTUS investigation.
One would assume that if they did not know what side the FBI was on.
-
Doesn't seem like there is a law stating a clerk cannot share a draft opinion with the media, as long as the clerk did not break the law in obtaining the draft.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/is-it-illegal-leak-us-supreme-court-opinion-2022-05-03/
-
@jon-nyc said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
I’ve read approximately 75 people could have had access within the court itself. Add to that significant others, etc.
I don't see the point of adding 'significant others' to the circle of possible perpetrators. The SO would not be the perpetrator of the leak. The leak would have occurred when the SO was shown the document.
@Horace said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
@jon-nyc said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
I’ve read approximately 75 people could have had access within the court itself. Add to that significant others, etc.
I don't see the point of adding 'significant others' to the circle of possible perpetrators. The SO would not be the perpetrator of the leak. The leak would have occurred when the SO was shown the document.
Someone could leave their laptop. Taken a paper copy home to read. All kinds of ways an SO could do this without the clerk or justice’s knowledge.
Not saying it’s the most likely avenue but it’s a possibility
-
@Horace said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
@jon-nyc said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
I’ve read approximately 75 people could have had access within the court itself. Add to that significant others, etc.
I don't see the point of adding 'significant others' to the circle of possible perpetrators. The SO would not be the perpetrator of the leak. The leak would have occurred when the SO was shown the document.
Someone could leave their laptop. Taken a paper copy home to read. All kinds of ways an SO could do this without the clerk or justice’s knowledge.
Not saying it’s the most likely avenue but it’s a possibility
@jon-nyc said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
@Horace said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
@jon-nyc said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
I’ve read approximately 75 people could have had access within the court itself. Add to that significant others, etc.
I don't see the point of adding 'significant others' to the circle of possible perpetrators. The SO would not be the perpetrator of the leak. The leak would have occurred when the SO was shown the document.
Someone could leave their laptop. Taken a paper copy home to read. All kinds of ways an SO could do this without the clerk or justice’s knowledge.
Not saying it’s the most likely avenue but it’s a possibility
Might as well just include Russian spies in the list of possible suspects at that point. Of course there is always a way to steal documents and leak them, for any Impossible Mission operative. We're all going on the much more interesting and plausible scenario of a clerk righteously sharing some salacious wrong side of history making.
-
Include the Russians if you will.
Maybe you’d like it better if I said “a righteous right-side-of-history SO of a clerk?”
@jon-nyc said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
Include the Russians if you will.
Maybe you’d like it better if I said “a righteous right-side-of-history SO of a clerk?”
I’m curious about motivation for this clear subversion of our institution. I’m also curious at the hesitance of many to speculate about the obvious.
-
@jon-nyc said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
We must consume different media because everybody spent the first week speculating.
I’ve seen a lot of calories burned whatabouting a theory that a right leaning clerk leaked it. These theories are inevitably from people uncomfortable with the more obvious tribal motivation.
-
There’s a potential reason a right-leaning clerk (or justice!) would leak it, and there’s a potential reason a left-leaning clerk would. Both are pretty obvious.
I don’t think you’ve landed on some special insight.
-
There’s a potential reason a right-leaning clerk (or justice!) would leak it, and there’s a potential reason a left-leaning clerk would. Both are pretty obvious.
I don’t think you’ve landed on some special insight.
@jon-nyc said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
There’s a potential reason a right-leaning clerk (or justice!) would leak it, and there’s a potential reason a left-leaning clerk would. Both are pretty obvious.
Care to share which you find more likely? I'm sure it's obvious and fascinating to list various non-zero possibilities, but not all of us consider that sort of discussion meaningful.
The fully tribal tack, as evidenced by this CNN piece from today, is to hand-wring about potential privacy abuses of the investigation, and about the wrong-side-of-history opinion, while not admitting to so much as a tsk tsk for the leak itself. They take this stance because they feel the leak was righteous, at which point the rules of the institution don't matter. So, I appreciate you haven't gone that route. Unless I'm misreading your posts, you're at least admitting that there's a tsk tsk involved.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/31/politics/supreme-court-roe-v-wade-leak-phone-records/index.html
-
Well you should at least take comfort in the fact that they’re making the same assumption you are about the leak.
@jon-nyc said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
Well you should at least take comfort in the fact that they’re making the same assumption you are about the leak.
I’m willing to lay my opinion on the table. How about you?
Education is extremely important.
-
There are more conservative judges, therefore there are more conservative clerks, so the law of equity states that it almost HAS to be a conservative clerk…
Also, the fact that it was a right-wing rag like Politico that the leaker leaked to kind of seals the deal…
-
@jon-nyc said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
Well you should at least take comfort in the fact that they’re making the same assumption you are about the leak.
I’m willing to lay my opinion on the table. How about you?
@Horace said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
@jon-nyc said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
Well you should at least take comfort in the fact that they’re making the same assumption you are about the leak.
I’m willing to lay my opinion on the table. How about you?
I did weeks ago
-
@Horace said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
@jon-nyc said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
Well you should at least take comfort in the fact that they’re making the same assumption you are about the leak.
I’m willing to lay my opinion on the table. How about you?
I did weeks ago
@jon-nyc said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
@Horace said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
@jon-nyc said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
Well you should at least take comfort in the fact that they’re making the same assumption you are about the leak.
I’m willing to lay my opinion on the table. How about you?
I did weeks ago
I recall you claiming that confirmations of the leak were leaks themselves, and that those confirmations came from clerks of right-leaning justices. I don't recall you making any concrete guess about who the original leaker was, or their motivation. You listed possibilities, but not probabilities. But maybe I missed something.
-
-
It’s funny watching your mind seize on any morsel of evidence that maybe just maybe a conservative judges’ chambers were responsible for this. Say Jon if you actually had to make a bet about whether it was a pro abort or anti abort agent who leaked the draft, what would be your bet?
Education is extremely important.
-
So, five years or more after the fact, this "concerned citizen" pens a letter about shit they probably barely remember and the NYT puts any credence at all in this stack of horse apples? And then the fool sticks it on social media?
Oh. My. Giddy. Aunt...
Lowering IQ? Hell, that just took the whole room down five points, at least.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
The minister’s account comes at a time of rising concerns about the court’s legitimacy. A majority of Americans are losing confidence in the institution, polls show, and its approval ratings are at a historic low. Critics charge that the court has become increasingly politicized, especially as a new conservative supermajority holds sway.
The left being concerned about the politicization of the court truly is rich. What they object to, if they had self-awareness, is the presence of non-politicized judges. Biden's most recent nominee was explicitly political, but in lefty-land, that means she is non-political, while those before her were political. It's all relative, you see.
