Investigating the SCOTUS leak
-
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.
-
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.
@Jolly said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
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.
The story is really meant in the spirit of whataboutism, under the assumption that a leftist virtue-bot leaked the draft. (What choice would a virtue-bot have, when watching history unfold in the direction of evil?) Only in certain fringy leftist conspiratorial minds does it constitute circumstantial evidence that Alito's camp leaked it.
Education is extremely important.
-
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?
@Horace said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
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?
You need to remove your tribal lens now and then. I’ve always said that a liberal clerk or justice is the most likely source, and still believe it. What I have also been able to do, is discuss a not-unreasonable motive that a right wing justice or clerk could have to release it. That’s not ‘seizing any morsel’, it’s simply evaluating the whole situation.
-
@Jolly said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
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.
The story is really meant in the spirit of whataboutism, under the assumption that a leftist virtue-bot leaked the draft. (What choice would a virtue-bot have, when watching history unfold in the direction of evil?) Only in certain fringy leftist conspiratorial minds does it constitute circumstantial evidence that Alito's camp leaked it.
@Horace said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
@Jolly said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
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.
The story is really meant in the spirit of whataboutism, under the assumption that a leftist virtue-bot leaked the draft. (What choice would a virtue-bot have, when watching history unfold in the direction of evil?) Only in certain fringy leftist conspiratorial minds does it constitute circumstantial evidence that Alito's camp leaked it.
Again with the lens.
My comment of ‘circumstantial evidence’ is as regards the 2014 event, not the 22 event. In fact in my OP I went out of my way to note the major difference between whispering to a trusted friend and leaking a draft document.
-
@Horace said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
@Jolly said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
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.
The story is really meant in the spirit of whataboutism, under the assumption that a leftist virtue-bot leaked the draft. (What choice would a virtue-bot have, when watching history unfold in the direction of evil?) Only in certain fringy leftist conspiratorial minds does it constitute circumstantial evidence that Alito's camp leaked it.
Again with the lens.
My comment of ‘circumstantial evidence’ is as regards the 2014 event, not the 22 event. In fact in my OP I went out of my way to note the major difference between whispering to a trusted friend and leaking a draft document.
@jon-nyc said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
@Horace said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
@Jolly said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
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.
The story is really meant in the spirit of whataboutism, under the assumption that a leftist virtue-bot leaked the draft. (What choice would a virtue-bot have, when watching history unfold in the direction of evil?) Only in certain fringy leftist conspiratorial minds does it constitute circumstantial evidence that Alito's camp leaked it.
Again with the lens.
My comment of ‘circumstantial evidence’ is as regards the 2014 event, not the 22 event. In fact in my OP I went out of my way to note the major difference between whispering to a trusted friend and leaking a draft document.
The only reason this is an interesting story is in how it reflects on the Hobbs leak. In that context it is a whataboutism misdirect. I have no trouble believing it is true, but irrelevant to the current subject people actually care about.
-
@jon-nyc said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
@Horace said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
@Jolly said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
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.
The story is really meant in the spirit of whataboutism, under the assumption that a leftist virtue-bot leaked the draft. (What choice would a virtue-bot have, when watching history unfold in the direction of evil?) Only in certain fringy leftist conspiratorial minds does it constitute circumstantial evidence that Alito's camp leaked it.
Again with the lens.
My comment of ‘circumstantial evidence’ is as regards the 2014 event, not the 22 event. In fact in my OP I went out of my way to note the major difference between whispering to a trusted friend and leaking a draft document.
The only reason this is an interesting story is in how it reflects on the Hobbs leak. In that context it is a whataboutism misdirect. I have no trouble believing it is true, but irrelevant to the current subject people actually care about.
@Horace said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
I have no trouble believing it is true, but irrelevant to the current subject people actually care about.
That was more or less my conclusion.
-
@Horace said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
I have no trouble believing it is true, but irrelevant to the current subject people actually care about.
That was more or less my conclusion.
@jon-nyc said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
@Horace said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
I have no trouble believing it is true, but irrelevant to the current subject people actually care about.
That was more or less my conclusion.
Irrelevancy to the Hobbs leak is at odds with the New York times story and your posting of a link to it in this thread.
-
Well it could be that the NYT put the story in play so it'll be in the news for a couple days whether we like it or not, and I came here to comment on it, and communicate my skepticism that even credible evidence of an earlier leak by Alito didn't really point to him being the culprit given that vast differences in the scenarios.
Or it could be that I secretly looked at this as the smoking gun implicating Alito, and my version of 4D chess is to say the opposite of that when I post about it.
I'll report, you decide.
-
Well it could be that the NYT put the story in play so it'll be in the news for a couple days whether we like it or not, and I came here to comment on it, and communicate my skepticism that even credible evidence of an earlier leak by Alito didn't really point to him being the culprit given that vast differences in the scenarios.
Or it could be that I secretly looked at this as the smoking gun implicating Alito, and my version of 4D chess is to say the opposite of that when I post about it.
I'll report, you decide.
@jon-nyc said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
Well it could be that the NYT put the story in play so it'll be in the news for a couple days whether we like it or not, and I came here to comment on it, and communicate my skepticism that even credible evidence of an earlier leak by Alito didn't really point to him being the culprit given that vast differences in the scenarios.
Or it could be that I secretly looked at this as the smoking gun implicating Alito, and my version of 4D chess is to say the opposite of that when I post about it.
You enjoyed the political valence of the transparently tribal “news” story. It’s not complicated. But yes duly noted that you respectfully disagree with the absurd connection with the Hobbs leak.
-
You’re going to figure large in the things I’m grateful for this thanksgiving,
LucyHorace. Without you, how would I know what I think and why?@jon-nyc said in Investigating the SCOTUS leak:
You’re going to figure large in the things I’m grateful for this thanksgiving,
LucyHorace. Without you, how would I know what I think and why?You’ve been calling people tribally motivated for years and years here. Meanwhile in your dotage you’ve become maybe the most emotionally invested tribalist on this board. Even if your tribe is more based on hate for the right than it is on respect for the left.
-
An investigation into the leak of a bombshell Supreme Court ruling overturning the federal right to abortion — weeks before it was officially released — failed to identify the culprit, the court said Thursday.
The inconclusive end to the probe was another embarrassment for the Supreme Court, which called the leak “one of the worst betrayals of trust in its history” and “a grave assault on the judicial process.”
Investigators interviewed nearly 100 court employees in the probe, 82 of whom had access to electronic or hard copies of the draft majority opinion by conservative Justice Samuel Alito.
But neither Alito nor the court’s other eight justices were eyed in the investigation, according to an official report.
Wouldn't it have been a kick if one of the justices leaked it?
-
An investigation into the leak of a bombshell Supreme Court ruling overturning the federal right to abortion — weeks before it was officially released — failed to identify the culprit, the court said Thursday.
The inconclusive end to the probe was another embarrassment for the Supreme Court, which called the leak “one of the worst betrayals of trust in its history” and “a grave assault on the judicial process.”
Investigators interviewed nearly 100 court employees in the probe, 82 of whom had access to electronic or hard copies of the draft majority opinion by conservative Justice Samuel Alito.
But neither Alito nor the court’s other eight justices were eyed in the investigation, according to an official report.
Wouldn't it have been a kick if one of the justices leaked it?
