May 3, 2022

"Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said in a statement Tuesday that the leaked draft opinion that proposes overturning Roe v. Wade is authentic but not final..."

"... and he is opening an investigation into how it became public. 'To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed,' Roberts said. 'The work of the Court will not be affected in any way.'"

Robert Barnes reports (at WaPo).

A witty comment at WaPo: "It’s almost as if the Supreme Court believes it has a right to privacy…."

87 comments:

What's emanating from your penumbra said...

A witty comment at WaPo: "It’s almost as if the Supreme Court believes it has a right to privacy…."

Witty? Sure, if you're 11 years old. Someone is hurting and so clings to a bad joke. The distinction of things protected by the constitution vs. being protected by statute, norms or other means is totally lost on some people.

I doubt Roberts thinks the leak violated the constitution. Then again, he may be a closet leftist, so it's not impossible.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Only leftists have a right to privacy.

Reminder how it's OK for a sitting Senator to threaten the court.

Owen said...

That WaPo comment is the Galactic Threadwinner Of All Time!

Gahrie said...

Once again you chose not to explicitly condemn the leak. In fact your comments imply an approval of it. Is there no step too far in the quest to preserve the "right" to kill your unborn child?

On the other hand, the destruction of civility and comity on the Supreme Court can't really be that big of a deal to people willing to allow, and even celebrate, the death of tens of millions of innocent babies.

Not Sure said...

Hilarious.

Until now it wasn't necessary to codify a "right to privacy" in SCOTUS deliberations because its essentiality was self-evident. But apparently this is now one more thing that has to be spelled out in the criminal code so that we can all enjoy the media spectacle that will confer "hero" status on yet another leftist insurrectionist bent on tearing the social fabric just a little bit more.

Mike Sylwester said...

It’s almost as if the Supreme Court believes it has a right to privacy

It's almost as if the Roe supporters really believe that privacy is crucially important.

n.n said...

Privacy to adjudicate, not to sacrifice human life for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes. The Constitution does not endorse slavery, diversity [dogma], political congruence ("="), redistributive change, planned parent/hood, and other wicked solutions.

Michael K said...

No doubt leaked by a lefty clerk for one of the Notorious Three.

Sebastian said...

"'The work of the Court will not be affected in any way.'"

Does he ever speak the truth?

Sebastian said...

Roberts also called his workforce "intensely loyal to the institution."

This from the guy supposedly concerned about its legitimacy.

Achilles said...

Time for some insects to get stepped on.

Quaestor said...

A witty comment at WaPo: "It’s almost as if the Supreme Court believes it has a right to privacy…."

Witty on a junior high school level, perhaps.

The Court has a right to confidentiality, not privacy, there is a substantive difference.

It appears that some women are so in love with the power to kill their offspring without legal hindrance up to and perhaps beyond the moment of natural birth that one of them, a recent Yale graduate clerking for Sotomayor, most likely, is willing to destroy everything to keep it as if legal abortion has any meaning in a society without law.

The leaker will be fired when identified, but what about the Justice? If it's Sotomayor (and it is) her reputation and trustworthiness will be shot to hell. A wise Latina... what a joke. The shade of Roger Taney will at least be relieved of the burden of being the worst jurist to sit for the High Court.

Joe Smith said...

Roberts is NOT asking the FBI to investigate, but rather the Marshall of the court.

Someone who afaik does not have subpoena power and cannot get search warrants to search email accounts, phones, etc.

Essentially someone with no law enforcement background or mission.

It's a coverup.

Roberts doesn't want to offend his lib friends.

He might not get invited to all the right parties.

Impeach him in '24 if Rs get the White House...

Howard said...

Bring on the Impeachment of La Loco Latina. That's going to be a winning stratogem for you people. Crush the whistle blower:

La cucaracha, la cucaracha,
Ya no puede caminar
Porque no tiene, porque le falta
Marihuana que fumar

wendybar said...


Kyle Becker
@kylenabecker
The radical left has changed its mind.

An “insurrection” is actually good so long as it’s *their* “insurrection.”
1:40 AM · May 3, 2022

Real American said...

What's a little breach of confidentiality to someone who believes murdering innocent babies is a "right"?

madAsHell said...

Pardon my ignorance, but why is the USSC reviewing Roe v. Wade? How did we get here?

This Roe v Wade review on Biden's watch is just TOO delicious.

Robert Marshall said...

The Supreme Court does not have a 'right' to privacy. What it has is a contractual right to confidentiality with regard to its employees (Justices, staff, law clerks). When you take the job, you commit to keeping the deliberative process confidential. Whoever leaked the draft opinion violated that commitment.

I expect that person to be found out. I also expect that at least some members of the Court will do their best to ruin that person's legal career, like Scalia explicitly warned each new batch of clerks that he would do if they breached confidentiality. Having one or more members of the Supreme Court as a determined enemy bent on retribution would not be a career-booster.

Robert Marshall said...

The Supreme Court does not have a 'right' to privacy. What it has is a contractual right to confidentiality with regard to its employees (Justices, staff, law clerks). When you take the job, you commit to keeping the deliberative process confidential. Whoever leaked the draft opinion violated that commitment.

I expect that person to be found out. I also expect that at least some members of the Court will do their best to ruin that person's legal career, like Scalia explicitly warned each new batch of clerks that he would do if they breached confidentiality. Having one or more members of the Supreme Court as a determined enemy bent on retribution would not be a career-booster.

mccullough said...

Round up the usual suspects

Mark said...

"No doubt leaked by a lefty clerk for one of the Notorious Three."

And your proof of this is what?

Absolutely nothing as far as I have seen, yet you feel happy pinning it on your political enemies. Yawn.

cfs said...

If it is discovered the leak came from a law clerk, what does this do to that school's Judicial Clerkship program? Could that law school be banned from participating or submitting recommendations for students? Because it would be obvious their Ethics curriculum leaves something to be desired.

Rosalyn C. said...

And here I suspected Roberts was the source of the leak. But then again I still think that.

Wilbur said...

Robert Marshall, you are quite correct.

Tangentially, the suggested witticism is, in fact, inapposite and irrelevant to the topic. And therefore, not very witty at all.

cfs said...

If one of this term's law clerks suddenly decides he or she prefers a career as a Starbucks barista, we will know who leaked the draft.

Joe Smith said...

'Bring on the Impeachment of La Loco Latina.'

I'm thinking the hypertension and diabetes brought about by too many visits to the taco truck will do the job just as well...

Wilbur said...

A dirty little secret is that, in spite of the screaming partisans on both sides of the abortion issue, it ultimately matters very little to most Americans.

MadTownGuy said...

"...and he is opening an investigation into how it became public."

I'm sure he will make sure to assign it to top men. Top. Men.

Humperdink said...

Does Howard's keyboard automatically type the words "you people" in every comment? Which demographic segment is he referring to? Asking for a friend.

Milo Minderbinder said...

I would give (long) odds that the leaker was a disappointed clerk for one of the five who've been lobbied by Roberts to move to a middle ground. More likely it was a clerk or staffer for Sonia baby or one of the short-timers in Breyer's office. However, one would have to be extremely sophomoric to believe this leak would embarrass or terrorize one of the five to switch his or her vote.

Well, here we are.... Just can't believe government is messing with our Constitutional rights again....

Michael K said...

Blogger Howard said...

Bring on the Impeachment of La Loco Latina. That's going to be a winning stratogem for you people. Crush the whistle blower:


No, she and the lefty clerk who carried out her instructions (Yale LS grad) will be lefty heroes to you progs.

Drago said...

Robert Marshall: "I expect that person to be found out. I also expect that at least some members of the Court will do their best to ruin that person's legal career,..."

LOL

That person knows he/she/xe will become a hero and face absolutely zero long term negative consequences. Quite the contrary. He/she/xe will be feted across the fruited plain, probably get a book deal and endless hagiographic write ups, as many appearances on lefty cable news shows as he/she/xe wishes, probably a couple of visiting teaching gigs at multiple universities, and his/her/xers pick of top democratical law firms.

And Roberts isnt going to do a damn thing about it. He is aligned with the leaker.

Drago said...

And there you have it.

Roberts will NOT ask hopelessly corrupt Wray's FBI to "investigate" (wink wink) the leak. Instead, Roberts is tossing the matter over to the Marshall of The SC, a thoroughly useless individual and group when it comes to "investigating" (wink wink).

LOL

Entirely as expected and predicted.

The only thing missing from this coming exercise in Investigation Theatre is a breathless Op-Ed from Andy McCarthy at National Review passionately defending the professionalism of the SC Marshall's office.

Andy will probably kick that Op-Ed out as soon as David French and Max Boot complete their rounds on MSNBC and CNN.

Original Mike said...

I've always found the claim that the right to an abortion flows from a right to privacy to be absurd. Do I have the right to murder grandpa in the privacy of my home?

Vance said...

REmember, Democrats are all perfectly fine with killing members of the Supreme Court. Chuck Schumer stood there on the steps of the Court and told his minions to kill Gorsuch and Kavanaugh not too long ago; and I fully expect him to go there again and add Alito and Thomas and Barrett to the list.

That’s not “insurrection” or a “threat to democracy” see. I wonder if our esteemed hostess is ok with Democrats trying to murder members of the Supreme Court in order to protect the right to murder babies? So far her comments seem to be totally fine with all the leftist outrage.

Scott said...

Do you think it's possible that the leaker was not a clerk, but a justice? It certainly mutes the impact the decision would have had on the November elections if it was released at the end of June -- at least somewhat.

Gerda Sprinchorn said...

Can the Federal Government pass a law legalizing abortion across the U.S.? (Interstate Commerce clause and all that.)

Chris Lopes said...

"Having one or more members of the Supreme Court as a determined enemy bent on retribution would not be a career-booster."

In a sane world, true. Here in Clown World, he or she just became a potential USSC nominee for the next dip shit liberal president.

NYC JournoList said...

What are the odds the leak came from the White House?

God of the Sea People said...

The sad thing is that even if this person has their reputation and legal career rightfully destroyed, they will still be celebrated by people on the left and will probably land a cushy job at a university or think tank.

madAsHell said...

Never mind!! This is all about Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization!!

It appears they were trying to garner more womxn's health, and they're losing it all. Pick your battles carefully.

Tom said...

I wonder if we’d need younger justices that turned over more regularly if we ended SCOTUS judicial clerks. Justices are paid well. They can do their own work.

And if one of the Justices leaked this (or authorized a clerk to leak it), they need to have the guts to declare it publicly.

One other thing - I think there’s an argument for why one of of the conservative justices might have leaked this first draft. If members of the original majority were getting cold feat, this might be a way to prevent them from changing their minds.

For instance, if ACB was reconsidering, now she’s on record and confirmed by the Chief Justice as, at one point, supporting this decision.

I still think it’s more likely this came from one of the three liberal justices or their clerks. But it’s possible it came from the conservative side.

Either way, the leak needs investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Then the Chief Judge needs to take radical action to ensure this never happens again - like banning clerks.

AZ Bob said...

And here I suspected Roberts was the source of the leak. But then again I still think that.--Roselyn C

Ditto.

rcocean said...

"Roberts doesn't want to offend his lib friends."

Roberts IS a liberal. He's just a reasonable one. There's zero reason to believe he's some sort of Right-winger who "just wants the Liberals to like him" or "is being blackmailed".

Even as early as 2005, he was voting with the Left on Key cases. The fact that he has SOME conservative positions doesn't make him one. That's why Bush nominated him. He did NOT want to put on Hard conservative on the bench as his first picki. And its only AFTER his sleath liberal pick Miers got bounced that he "balanced" the court with Alito to replace Renquist.

Beasts of England said...

’Can the Federal Government pass a law legalizing abortion across the U.S.?’

Of course. And the Dems have the House, Senate, and presidency, so it’ll be super easy to do. Barely an inconvenience.

Unfortunately, that would put at their politicians on the record supporting abortion - right before an election in which mostly-Roman Catholic Hispanics are quickly abandoning their party due to their transphilia. ¡No bueno!

rcocean said...

According to Susan collins, if Kavanaugh. ACB and Roberts are really willing to overturn Roe v. Wade that goes against what these people told her under oath and in her office privately.

Which brings up the question: Was Collins asking Judges about SPECIFIC CASES in the privacy of her office and getting Yes/No answers? If so, that's completely against what we've been told for 20 years.

Interesting, no? How much do you want to bet that the two Bushes were privately asking judges how they would rule on Roe v. Wade or other cases, and then deliberately choosing Souter/Roberts because they knew they wuold vote liberal despite all the propaganda?

ConradBibby said...

My take: None of the justices would leak this. In particular, the three dissenters in particular probably wouldn't want Alito's reportedly well-reasoned majority opinion hanging out for weeks prior to any version of the dissents being released.

A clerk is a good possibility, but the stakes for a law clerk in doing this are incredibly high. I would imagine it's someone else at the court, maybe some administrative worker (secretary, etc.) one in the printing office. They can limit circulation within the court but it still has to be a fair number of people who had access to at least one draft.

rcocean said...

Finally, of course Roberts has zero interest in punishing the leaker. In DC, The Democrats/Left breaks the rules/norms and the Republicans go along with it. If the shoe was on the other foot, if the D's suspected that Thomas or Alioto had leaked, there would be a media firestorm, articles of impeachment, an FBI/DOJ investigation, and Roberts would be leading it.

The R's don't care about anything except helping big business and spending money on defense. The D's care about a lot of things.

ConradBibby said...

I think that if the leaker intended to gin up opposition to the impending decision, that was a strategic mistake. The dems have been warning for YEARS that Roe was in danger. Since the Trump appointees got in, those warnings became even more frequent and intense. After Dobbs was argued, it was treated as almost a foregone conclusion that Roe would be overturned. By now, with this leak, it seems like whatever shock value there was that Roe might go away has been thoroughly dissipated.

Joe Smith said...

Twitter sidebar headline from the 'LA Times.'

'What went wrong with Roe v. Wade? The abortion decision was built on a shaky foundation, experts say'

This is the 'LA Times,' not 'The Federalist.'

It looks like they know it's done...

Readering said...

WH personnel by definition would be recipient of leak, not leaker.

traditionalguy said...

Roberts has been blackmailed for years. He never crosses his bosses.

Readering said...

Interesting article about Roe leaks. There were 2. For the second, a Powell clerk leaked the result to a buddy at Time, with promise nothing published in advance of decision. But it was a weekly, and there was a last minute delay handing down the opinion, so the issue preceded. Clerk offered to resign, but Powell told Burger Time betrayed him, and Burger let the clerk stay. He even worked a second term.

Doug Hasler said...

I think Drago has it right. If the leaker is a law clerk, or a staff member, he/she/it has a very bright future. Sure, it is a clear violation of legal ethics, and a breach of his/her/its duty to the Supreme Court. At one time, such a person would be disbarred before you could say "Scalia". I am not sure that is true any longer.

Even if the leaker were to be disbarred, not to worry. This person will be hailed as a champion of Birthing Person's Rights. He/she/it could still look forward to a long and lucrative career in academia, media, or some other leftist bastion.

Gojuplyr831@gmail.com said...


What are the odds the leak came from the White House?

WH did not have a copy unless it was leaked to WH

.. they will still be celebrated by people on the left and will probably land a cushy job at a university or think tank.

Undoubtedly be celebrated but job prospects for people who can't be trusted with confidential info are slim. Even if the person is on your side, how can you trust that person to not betray you in pursuit of his/her own agenda again?

What's emanating from your penumbra said...

If you want to see unhinged lunatics in the wild, head on over to twitter this afternoon.

Maynard said...

WH personnel by definition would be recipient of leak, not leaker.

Yes. I wonder if it was leaked to the WH back in February and they made the decision to make it public.

That makes more sense than a law clerk deciding when to make it public. Such a political decision needs to be made by the pros.

Readering said...

I think Collins and Murkowski fixed on wonderful platitudes on stare decisis, although their Dem colleagues were telling them at the time they were delusional. I am not surprised, but disappointed, that neither Barrett nor Kavanaugh willing to follow Chief's incrementalism. Still, on a court with 6 cradle Catholics, right-to-abortion's days numbered. Now about the right to non-traditional marriage ....

Jim at said...

Absolutely nothing as far as I have seen, yet you feel happy pinning it on your political enemies. Yawn.

An intelligent person would survey the situation, see who has the most to gain by leaking the decision and come to the conclusion it was one of the Court's lefties.

In the end, that may not be the case. But I wouldn't bet on it.

gadfly said...

The left is screaming, "It's all about unenumerated rights!" and "Discrimination against women's rights!" I suppose that means that we can name new "rights" whenever - and men simply have no constitutional rights.

And as usual, they have already run over the rights of human unborn offspring and will never speak to the issue.

Jim at said...

And here I suspected Roberts was the source of the leak. But then again I still think that.

I don't know. Roberts has always been concerned - overly concerned, imo - about the appearance of the Court and his legacy. I don't think he'd want to be responsible for making it look this bad.

Achilles said...

Rosalyn C. said...

And here I suspected Roberts was the source of the leak. But then again I still think that.

I agree. His office is the most likely source.

Roberts will be remembered as one of the most dishonest amoral corporate crony shithead justices ever to serve on the court.

His politicization of the court is destructive and toxic to our society.

who-knew said...

The FBI investigating the Ashley Biden diary leak is illegitimate because there is no plausible federal crime involved. Every thing I've read so far says this is a huge breach of ethics and confidentiality but not a crime. So Roberts shouldn't be trying to drag the FBI into this (score one for my consistency). Besides, I wouldn't have any faith in our so-called 'Justice' department to conduct an honest investigation.

Daniel12 said...

"A dirty little secret is that, in spite of the screaming partisans on both sides of the abortion issue, it ultimately matters very little to most Americans."

Guttmacher estimated in 2017 that almost 1 in 4 women in the US will have an abortion by age 45. (No, it's not a hope, it's just a statistical analysis.) And then there are X others per women for whom this matters. So you are very, very incorrect.

NYC JournoList said...

Does the Court circulate all of the “big” opinions to the White House as a heads up? I am being cynical … maybe. It only happens with certain Presidents. Reagan and Trump were fools not to be trusted with important matters and the Bushes were CIA men. Nixon was Nixon. All of the other Presidents since and including FDR get a draft.

Gospace said...

Daniel12 said...

Guttmacher estimated in 2017 that almost 1 in 4 women in the US will have an abortion by age 45. (No, it's not a hope, it's just a statistical analysis.) And then there are X others per women for whom this matters. So you are very, very incorrect.


How was that number figured? (Number of abortions)/(number of women under 45)? Or did it take into account the number of women who have one every 2 years?

Aught Severn said...

And here I suspected Roberts was the source of the leak. But then again I still think that.

The leak is coming from inside the house!!!

Paddy O said...

"If you want to see unhinged lunatics in the wild, head on over to twitter this afternoon."

Twitter is what you make it. I don't have hardly anyone talking about the decision in my feed. Mostly I follow museums, zoos, old artist accounts, friends, professional colleagues, and assorted others. I committed to keeping it as politics free as I can, though Twitter itself makes it hard, trying to push politics all the time.

The few in my feed who do mention it are quite hinged and thoughtful.

roesch/voltaire said...

Oh my if it is not mentioned in the constitution it should not be protected by law, now I wonder where this right wing reactionary thinking will lead next. No wonder there was a leak.

Maynard said...

Now about the right to non-traditional marriage.

Keep beating that straw man piƱata Readering. It will eventually collapse, but you won't find candies at your feet.

gpm said...

>>Does Howard's keyboard automatically type the words "you people" in every comment?

No, just mostly when he's being an obnoxious, insulting asshole. The appearance of those two words is a tell.

Otherwise, Howard expects to be treated as an interesting, respected commenter. For whatever reason, maybe because they're bigger people than he is, those he repeatedly, obnoxiously insults as "you people" treat him respectfully when he's not being an obnoxious, insulting asshole. Hard to see how you would deal with such a schmuck in real life.

--gpm

Daniel12 said...

You can find the result, calculation and methods here: https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304042

It's based on age specific rates of first abortion, added together to produce the cumulative rate of first abortion by age 45. So it isn't skewed by the subset of women who have multiple abortions.

Drago said...

roesch/voltaire: "Oh my if it is not mentioned in the constitution it should not be protected by law, now I wonder where this right wing reactionary thinking will lead next."

Oh my, even if it is specifically mentioned in the constitution it should not be protected by law, now I wonder where this left wing fascist thinking will lead next.

Mr. Majestyk said...

One thing that puzzle me about this leak. Why now? The draft is almost three months old. Did the leaker just get it? Or did he just decide that now was a good time to leak it? If the leadker is in a position to get his hands on a copy of a draft Supreme Court decision, why not leak a more recent draft? Surely there has been another draft these past three months.

Lem said...

"... and he is opening an investigation into how it became public."

Does that mean the FBI is looking into it?

Next thing you know... Russia is behind the leak.

Tom said...

Man, there are people who have worked for 50 years to overturn Roe.

The amount of time, energy, and money that has been dedicated to fighting abortion is staggering.

And for all the trouble Trump caused, he turned out to be the only person who could have beaten Hillary Clinton and thus have the opportunity to appoint three justices, tipping the scales in favor of this outcome.

Who knows how many lives have been saved because Trump chose to run and all those people for 50 years fought to protect human life.

The older I get, the more I believe the future will look back on us as barbaric genocidal maniacs who supported the killing of unborn children.

Now we start the long hard process of self-governance in each state. The court will no longer do our dirty work.

James Sheufelt said...

The problem with the "right to privacy" is that it has been applied to exactly one medical procedure. If this exists then why can the government intervene in experimental treatments? Aren't they private.

Tom T. said...

Mr. Majestyk, I suggested in another thread the possibility that one of the five Justices (perhaps Kavanaugh or Barrett) was now considering switching sides, so a conservative clerk leaked the early draft opinion to pressure them to hold firm.

Readering said...

Mr Majestik: a couple of possibilities. The leaker may not have had regular access to drafts. Given traditions and stakes, justices (who all profess to be friends; remember mask kerfuffle?) and law clerks seem less likely to leak. And timing could reflect waiting until after last court argument, so less distracting and fewer in the building.

Readering said...

All the agitation about prosecuting and jailing. For what? Copyright? Theft? As long as the leaker does not lie to investigators.... Come to think of it ....

Some courts circulate drafts to parties. Other courts don't hear argument until draft in hand. I hope the leaker is revealed, and of course I see the corrosive effect. I was shocked last night. But treason, insurrection and underming the rule of law? It's a draft. Which some love and some hate. As they will again in June. Eventually many drafts find their way to collections of justices' papers in libraries. But few care except researchers. Because they were drafts. Although that changed somewhat since presidents hit on naming former clerks to the Court. (Think Rhenquist and Brown v Board.)

Michael McNeil said...

Josh Blackman wrote this about Chief Justice Roberts in The Volokh Conspiracy (at Reason): [quoting…]

Roberts has an absolute obligation to conduct a thorough and transparent investigation. And at the end of that investigation, Roberts must publicly identify the persons who are responsible for this leak — that includes Justices and clerks. Heads must roll. Clerks cannot fall on their swords to save their bosses. Anyone implicated in Leakgate (yes, I dubbed a term) should be referred to the Department of Justice for potential criminal activity, including theft of government property. And now there may actually be a need for impeachment proceedings. If Roberts cannot resolve this situation, he must resign. Yes, I said he should resign two years ago, but now I really mean it. A resignation would mean giving Biden another Supreme Court nomination. So be it. I don't care. Roberts has been an utterly ineffective Chief, who will never fill the shoes of his predecessor, Chief Justice Rehnquist. It's time to hang 'em up, Johnny. Not even Warren Burger presided over such a dysfunctional building. Can anyone say Chief Justice Garland?

[/unQuote]

Daniel12 said...

Blackman also writes this in the same piece:

"Fifth, the Court should issue the Dobbs opinion as soon as possible. Do it tomorrow. Don't wait till Thursday, or next Monday, or the end of June. The longer this process drags on, the worse the Court will be.

Sixth, if any members of the majority changed their vote in response to the leak, that change will be seen as a direct response to this leak.

...

"At this point, the Court is stuck. The only way to escape the bottomless pit is to fight back against a campaign to alter votes."

If I could understand:
He's saying issue this 1st draft opinion (as noted in highlight at the top of the document) as a final draft immediately because it has leaked, even if usual practice would be to turn a 1st draft into a final draft over several months of back and forth between all the justices, with the possibility of vote changes. Draft should become law instantly.

Further, he's saying none of the majority justices can change their opinion, even if they believe it's correct to do so, because it would be seen as a response to the leak.

To summarize, you can't change the text of the draft or the votes now that it has leaked.

So if in the future another 1st draft majority opinion on a different case leaks, should that one too get immediately issued as is with no votes changed?

This kind of absolutely insane, stupid, dangerous "reasoning" (which only makes sense as window dressing for "come on, overturn Roe and Casey already") is why it's possible that the draft was leaked by the majority to lock in the extreme language of the opinion and ensure that no justice in the majority changes his or her vote.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Readering said...
All the agitation about prosecuting and jailing. For what? Copyright? Theft? As long as the leaker does not lie to investigators.... Come to think of it ....

I'm curious, are you really that mentally blind?

It does seem to be a severe pathology on the Left: The complete inability to understand why the rules should apply to you, followed by complete outage when that same rule that you violated no longer protects you. See Bork, Garland

It really is sad to see

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Daniel12 said...
He's saying issue this 1st draft opinion (as noted in highlight at the top of the document) as a final draft immediately because it has leaked, even if usual practice would be to turn a 1st draft into a final draft over several months of back and forth between all the justices, with the possibility of vote changes. Draft should become law instantly.

Further, he's saying none of the majority justices can change their opinion, even if they believe it's correct to do so, because it would be seen as a response to the leak.

To summarize, you can't change the text of the draft or the votes now that it has leaked.


Wow, you figured it out! I'm so proud of you!

Here, let me give the short version:
That which is rewarded is repeated.
Anyone who's upset at the complete violation of trust demonstrated by the (most likely Left wing) person who leaked the document has only one reasonable response: make sure the leaker loses, and his / her goal is defeated

Since it appears that the goal was to try to turn this majority opinion into a minority one, it follows that the only correct response is to keep it a majority one

Which part about that do you not understand? The part where there should ever be any consequences for bad behavior by your side?

readering said...

Situations like this tend to bring out insane, stupid, dangerous reasoning. think of all the thought that went into figuring out "legal" ways to keep biden from being inaugurated on time.

Daniel12 said...

"Anyone who's upset at the complete violation of trust demonstrated by the (most likely Left wing) person who leaked the document has only one reasonable response: make sure the leaker loses, and his / her goal is defeated"

Dude every single one of those people cares much more about overturning Roe and Casey, and making sure the leak disrupts that, than some sort of leak punishment.

Which is good because if you think the right move is to overturn these decisions only to punish the leaker for trying to subvert the process, and not because you oppose Roe and Casey, you'd be a vengeful sociopath.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Daniel12 said...
"Anyone who's upset at the complete violation of trust demonstrated by the (most likely Left wing) person who leaked the document has only one reasonable response: make sure the leaker loses, and his / her goal is defeated"

Dude every single one of those people cares much more about overturning Roe and Casey, and making sure the leak disrupts that, than some sort of leak punishment.


So, in Daniel12's world, there are no people who have actual principles.

Which means it's "ok" that he has no principles, just a lust for power, because "that's what everyone is like!"