Supreme Court leak shows how far liberals will go to achieve their political ends
As "They" say .... "Never let a good crises go to waste" ..... The "Ends" will JUSTIFY "Their Means" !
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
J udicial analyst Carrie Severino said Tuesday the leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion on abortion shows the depths liberals will go to achieve their political ends.
"This is a very small tight network of people who would have had access to this opinion including really just the justices and their clerks. It shows to me the depth to which liberal activists are willing to go and presumably in this case a liberal activist clerk on the court are willing to go to try to achieve their political ends," she said.
The Supreme Court is poised to strike down Roe v. Wade, according to the unprecedented leak of a draft opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito.
The draft leak obtained by Politico was written in early February. It was not immediately clear if it has been rewritten or revised. The Court has declined to verify or disavow the document. Analysts have suggested the leak may represent an attempt to pressure a Supreme Court justice to change his or her vote on the pivotal case.
Until an official opinion is signed and released by the Court, Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land. Drafts circulate and change, as do votes.
Severino said that the leaker may have assumed releasing the draft opinion would encourage the court to potentially change direction
."Because drumming up protests and potentially violence like we started to see last night, some of the protests at the court. It’s almost as if there is no American institution they are unwilling to destroy in order to achieve their extreme policy goals."
Tags
Who is online
32 visitors
"Because drumming up protests and potentially violence like we started to see last night, some of the protests at the court. It’s almost as if there is no American institution they are unwilling to destroy in order to achieve their extreme policy goals."
"there is no American institution they are unwilling to destroy in order to achieve their extreme policy goals."
That is so true regarding today's gop/gqp/republicans/alleged conservatives.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
There is no evidence about where the leak came from. Since it was written by a conservative judge, it was probably by one of his conservative aides.
There is no evidence about on that .
It makes no sense that it was leaked by a conservative aide due to the firestorm this brought about (and that could easily be predicted). As these opinions are shared among all the justices it could come from anywhere and from any justice's office. There will be an investigation and I do hope they find out who leaked this as that person has IMO broken the trust of the court and should be expelled from working there.
The author of this 'article' has no evidence 'about on that' either yet it's blamed on the 'left'.
These alleged conservative justices are the ones who have broken the trust of the court.
Just another concerned Alexander Vindman type ?
How ?
You mean you don't know ?
So no comment on that?
Do tell !
I like to learn new things.
You do know in order to tell....right ?
There was. Did you "Miss it " ?
There is no evidence it was leaked by a liberal, but you don't seemed concerned with that. Do you?
Obviously not.
It might have been. Perhaps a clerk was worried that Chief Justice Roberts was getting traction persuading Gorsuch or Kavanaugh to vote to uphold Roe and leaked the draft in an attempt to pressure against any defection.
My concern is that something was leaked from an on going case at our "Supreme" Court.
Who did it, will be what to watch, to see which reporting is correct.
For now, It has the Stench of "Left" all over it, after watching the Allowed doings and goings on by the "Left" for 6 years.
How do you know ?
Did someone "LEAK" it to you ?
So with no proof you and the author of this 'article' blame the left. What a surprise!
It wasn't hard to come to a "Conclusion" like that. 6 years of watching how the "Left" has operated, helped quite a bit.
Don't you have some "Learning" from "History" yourself ?
There's no way to know yet. If it was a draft to be reviewed, it would have been available to every justice, and their clerks. I think each justice has 4 clerks, so that's 45 people, at minimum.
But the judge that wrote it only has 4, and a conservative judge would most likely hire conservative clerks.
Not that it matters since numbers show that Roe v Wade is supported by a majority of republican conservatives as well.
I understand, but they all read these drafts before joining them.
Not only is there no evidence it’s completely nonsensical to think that that would happen. Nutty comments like the one you referred to are the reason why I can’t stand to be around here for more than a minute or two.
What were the 'Allowed doings and goings on by the "Left" for 6 years"?
The left used the Court for 50 years. Now that things don't go their way, they are ready to burn the whole thing down.
How has the "Left" operated?
You say these things with no examples of what you're talking about like in 1.1.8
"For now, It has the Stench of "Left" all over it, after watching the Allowed doings and goings on by the "Left" for 6 years."
Please do provide some examples of the "Allowed doings and goings on by the "Left" for 6 years" and how the "Left" has operated.
The multitudes of readers here are waiting for those examples.
What this whole thing is proving is that the Supreme Court is leaking credibility like the Titanic.
In theory the best legal minds in the country should be deciding what the meaning of the Constitution is in the 21st century. In reality decisions are predetermined by the justices political ideology. They dont base many decisions on the constitution , they base them on their political affiliation. The truth is for people this smart (enough to be SC justices) , they are capable of arguing both sides of any issue and make it sound in compliance with the constitution. In fact this happens all the time, as many dissenting opinions are considered by legal experts to be as well reasoned and fact based as the majority opinions are. The idea that these justices are god like figures imparting indisputable legal wisdom to the nation is now a forlorn belief.
Both political parties should agree to a revamping of the Supreme Court that emphasizes the nomination of justices who are political moderates.
Find one. And your word salad needs some sort of dressing as it falls flat.
You're 50 years too late. You had it your way with activist judges acting as if the Constitution were a granter of wishes. Now we have a Court that is dedicated to the Constitution. You can't burn it all down now. You told us how sacred the Court was for far too long.
And you're living about 50 years in the past, a past that didn't exist
How so?
The Supreme Court is losing credibility, fast. They should consider this a crisis and not time for business as usual. The media is openly speculating that Roberts may have been trying to convince justices to alter their positions on abortion for what amounts to political reasons. If the Chief justice will use politics as a persuader then the Court is not what we have believed it is, a neutral arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution. Its over , as presently constituted. The Court needs to be reformed.
You mean among the woke?
The media is openly speculating that Roberts may have been trying to convince justices to alter their positions on abortion for what amounts to political reasons.
Is that what the far left media is saying? Where is the evidence of that? After all we have one party rule and last time I looked those who favored abortion slightly outnumbered those who didn't. Wouldn't it involve the serious problem with the "Roe" decision itself? Why not read the leaked Alito opinion? That opinion deals with the constitutional issues that the Court ignored in Roe and dodged in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
The Court needs to be reformed.
Says the radical left....along with the Constitution!
Vic, in 1973 the Supreme Court ruled that abortion is constitutional. Has the constitution changed in the last 50 years?
Any revisiting of Roe is immediately suspect in terms of politics. There is only one group in the country that is solidly anti-abortion, the conservative Christians. They have spent years working to get a Supreme Court that would overturn Roe.
Knowing all this, and it is indisputable, how can this new decision be called a measured and politically neutral constitutional decision? It is obviously political. This set of right wing judges wouldnt even be on the Court if not for politics.
On what basis is the present day court more correct about abortion than the one in 1973? There is none. It is all opinion. That is because the Constitution itself doesnt even acknowledge women whatsoever, let alone women's rights to control their bodies.
Understood. But would a 1st draft be disseminated? Would he want his colleagues to see all the mistakes and misspellings? I would think that the 1st draft would be internal to the author, so he can review and fix any glaring mistakes before releasing the 2nd draft.
John, in 1857 the Supreme Court ruled that a slave named Dred Scott, who had resided in a free state and territory was not thereby entitled to his freedom. THEY WERE WRONG!
Has the constitution changed in the last 50 years?
It has never changed. The Roe decision could never be credibly explained. They basically pulled it out of their ass.
Any revisiting of Roe is immediately suspect in terms of politics. There is only one group in the country that is solidly anti-abortion, the conservative Christians. They have spent years working to get a Supreme Court that would overturn Roe.
That is wrong on many counts starting with naming the leading group against it as Conservative Christians. The primary group against Roe are those who question it's Constitutionality and that group contains many on the left like RBG and many others. Should I list them?:
illinoisfamily.org/life/what-truth-telling-liberals-say-about-roe-v-wade-2/
Why do people need a "right" to have an abortion? Or, what is the basis for telling women that they dont have that right? Roe v Wade was decided because a) abortion is as old as the hills , and cannot be prevented, and b) women were suffering because of the social and medical ramifications of illegal abortion.
Nothing on earth can prevent abortion, simply because many women see nothing wrong with it. And they see themselves as needing to do it. Its not the same as "murder" , where almost all people believe murder to be wrong. Abortion is much much more in dispute. ABC has a new poll showing that 70% of Americans believe abortion to be a matter decided by a woman and her doctor. On what basis is the Supreme Court going to tell this 70% they are wrong? Government, including state governments and the Supreme Court, has no business even commenting on abortion, let alone banning it.
-
Opinion | Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
I think that’s a fair question. By the 9th Amendment they shouldn’t need to have the right specifically enumerated. But rather than just say that, they made it a privacy issue, which I have always found to be a weak legal ground for abortion specifically.
Not that I have a problem with privacy being in the Constitution. I don’t. But logically, abortion and privacy are not connected. No one objects to abortion because you keep it private. They’re concerned about - as the Court put it - the potentiality of human life. It doesn’t have anything to do with privacy.
In Roe, the Court acknowledged that the state had an interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. It made this declaration with little in the way of legal support or persuasive argument. I’m oversimplifying, but the state basically claimed the interest and the Court accepted it. Then they weighed the competing interests.
I think it’s fair to inquire if the state legitimately has such an interest. After all, the Court also decided that - for purposes of the 14th Amendment - an embryo or fetus is not a person. Therefore, what produces the state interest?
All of this hints at what a poorly reasoned holding the Roe opinion was. That’s not to say that legal abortion is right or wrong. It has just never been a strong holding as it was written.
Did you ever think, that is one of the major problems with our society?
“Did you ever think, that is one of the major problems with our society?”
Are you equating the ‘major’ societal woes we face with a woman’s right to self determination in how she conducts her life?
Guessing you have no daughters, or are diligent in grooming them according to whatever warped doctrine to which you ascribe.
Which makes no damn sense; since the firestorm this unleashed is aimed only at the conservative judges. If Roberts was getting traction persuading one or two of the other judges; having their families threatened and protestors/rioters at their doors might just push them right into his arms, and Roe v Wade gets upheld.
A conservative clerk would have to be a real dumbass to release it. Even more so if one of the leftist lunatics decides to kill one (or more) of the conservative judges.
Pretty sure the wicked bitch of the west Nancy Pelosi has a damn good idea who the leaker is; as well a few other key Democrats. They were quick on the gun on this; and knew well before the Politico article was published. A conservative leaker also wouldn't run to the Democrats and Politico.
So you admit that it had nothing to do with the Constitution. It also sounds like you think that if things seem right & just they should be legal. You keep forgetting that there are others who also feel they have the moral high ground on this.
Nothing on earth can prevent abortion, simply because many women see nothing wrong with it. And they see themselves as needing to do it. Its not the same as "murder" , where almost all people believe murder to be wrong. Abortion is much much more in dispute.
And many of the people who are pro-life are women. We won't get anywhere arguing who is more moral or comparing polls. I'm only interested in what is in the Constitution. You know, that great document that you seem to think is outdated.
I fully expect the shrill cries for court-packing to start at any moment now.
One for each state and one from DC for the breaker.
Do you expect the majority to have its will thwarted?
What stopped adding justices was the will of voters.
Which will change with a highly unpopular decision!
I expect enough Americans to have the common sense to know that SCOTUS isn't responsible to the majority in its decisions.
I hope I am right that enough thinking people know what the difference is between court ruling and legislation.
They do. Just look at the last few elections where conservatives won the Presidency.
I don't know why anyone calls these fucking hypocrites conservatives anymore. They're anything but conservative.
Are you referring to Republican presidents who won the electoral college in accordance to law, or are you imagining something else?
Labels seem important to you, perhaps that is something you should discuss with your fellow Democrats.
“Do you expect the majority to have its will thwarted?”
The Constitution has nothing to to with majority will - it’s about morality and it keeps the majority of wolves from voting sheep for dinner.
Do you even know what that word means??? Seems not.
Now, you were saying..................
“…it’s about morality…”
And based upon just whose morality? The majority? The Right? The Left?
The misfortune lies in not codifying Roe. Afraid we are looking at a future map of states showing those allowing choice vs. those that do not. A map that will change as the political winds blow.
Bottom line, an egregious step back for Women’s rights everywhere.
You can actually look at those two definitions and NOT see they are exactly that? You and yours are always claiming that the GOP is regressive meaning they want to maintain the way things are/were and not liberal/progressive enough and you can type that with a straight face. [ deleted ]
Now you were saying............again?
Almost forgot..............
Those are already in place.
Yes. They won in accordance to law, DESPITE not winning the majority of votes. And despite your overwhelm desire to side track, what we are talking about is the majority having their will thwarted.
There you go, I outlined what this conversation is about, since you refuse to read it before butting in.
Glad to see you admit it. That is precisely what I claimed.
Forgive me for responding directly to YOUR side track comment in 2.2.2. I should know better than attempt to discuss what YOU bring up.
Thank you for yet another example of you erroneously assuming facts not in evidence.
Really? Okay then, let's have you prove it.
This conversation thread started with me addressing a comment by JBB. My response was to 1 particular statement by JBB, which I specifically quoted in my response.
What was the specific statement by JBB that I addressed?
The proof is before you, but I can't understand it for you.
Your loss, not mine.
Thank you for providing the evidence that you DO NOT read the threads before butting in.
I am sorry you can't tell what I am talking about when I respond directly to what you wrote.
Seems to me you should at least try to follow the conversation.
I can when you do, but you do it so rarely that is is barely a statistical blip.
Here is a helpful hint for you:
When I reply to you, I usually QUOTE your own words that I am replying TO.
At least that way other readers know what I am talking about even if it escapes your understanding.
You can copy and paste. Too bad you replies to my quotes don't have anything to do with them. The best you usually did is quote partial sentences. Don't believe me? Scroll up...
If you can't find any partial sentence to respond to, you just leave it blank and start talking out of the opposite end of your body.
I quote partial sentences because I find the whole sentences much too tedious.
“I quote partial sentences because I find the whole sentences much too tedious.”
And on a larger scale, substitute ‘fact’ for ‘sentences’ and the entire charade becomes glaringly apparent.
Too tedious describes it perfectly.
yawn.
But as we already see, that's not going to stop the harpies from shrieking.
Nope !
They're even claiming that this is the actual Final Ruling right now, instead of one "Opinion" !
The opinion already has five, maybe six, votes...
[Deleted]
Maybe ..... just maybe ........ That isn't a true statement.
MAYBE ?
True.
Highly unlikely considering the decision is writ!
"Decision" ?....or "Draft Opinion" !
A draft opinion that already has votes to pass.
Who else on the "Supreme Court" has publicly weighed in on this "Draft Opinion" ?
Maybe that "Leaker" can LEAK that too !
Chief Justice John Roberts alreay confirmed that the 98 page leak is an authentic opinion authorized by a majority of the SC Justices...
His "Actual" words....not made up words:
SCOTUSblog on Twitter: "JUST IN: The Supreme Court confirms the authenticity of the draft opinion revealed last night by Politico. The chief justice has ordered an investigation into the leak. https://t.co/XZweHdyhCG" / Twitter
Yes.
No.
Time to notify Mary Poppins on this disinformation of "authorized by the Majority of the SC Justices" !
America has done a lot of things under the banner of "the ends justify the means" .
This isn't one of them.
Liberals will get to the polls to preserve our rights...
And how will votes in November preserve rights?
Look it up...
So the usual nonresponsive answer.
Thanks!
Comical memes to hide your failure to answer just won't cut it anymore.
Own up to your failures, and try to improve!
Some clerk has just shot their own career in the heart.
What if a life term justice leaked the decision?
What if a life term justice leaked the decision?
They should be impeached.
That seems very unlikely. What would the justice gain versus the loss of trust from the rest of the Court, not to mention possible impeachment?
Only if found out. Will there be a full investigation or will it be ignored due to partisan bias? More likely IMO will be the breach of trust that the justices will have for their fellow justices and staff. The impact of that could be huge.
The Chief Justice has already ordered an investigation. I don't know how partisan bias would play into that.
My strong initial feeling about this is that it has to be a clerk - and one working without the knowledge of any justices. There's just no sense in a justice doing this. Admittedly, there's not much sense in anyone doing this, but a young clerk is more likely to do something stupid like this.
That IMO would come under the bias of the Marshal of the Court. Everybody has their political bias as well as pre-existing ideas over abortion. I hope for a full and honest investigation but don't know the Marshal so cannot really comment on the potential for bias to color the results. Because of the nature of the leaked opinion, that would be an issue regardless of who did the investigation. We can only hope...
As for who leaked it, I agree. It was most likely a clerk or another permanent employee of a Justice. I hope they can accept that they very likely have thrown away any legal career they might have envisioned.
Heck, chances are they won't hurt their career with this stunt. They stand a good chance at getting hired by some university as a teacher or something, we have seen what kinds of people some of these schools are willing to hire.
Maybe, maybe not. I believe that most colleges would require at a minimum some years actually practicing the law in order to teach the law. Now they could get hired for something other than a law professor. And I agree that there will be more than enough who would celebrate the person for what they did and wish to reward them if possible. We'll just have to wait to see what happens.
Clerk? Why not one of the other justices? Or maybe a janitor looking to make a few hundred dollars.
Whoever it was fcked over their co-workers.
yeah, ok
Access, means, motive?
No justice could advance their career doing this. Neither would a janitor. But a clerk could turn it into something lucrative in politics or journalism. Normally, a SCOTUS clerk would be looking to advance their career in the judiciary or politics. This would then need to be someone who has decided a career in the judiciary is no longer for them. However, they could potentially end up at a firm sympathetic to whatever their reasons were for leaking the document, running for office on the same grounds, or with a lobbying firm, or maybe a TV gig.
By your logic General Benedict Arnold and Major John Andre' can't be traitors. Janitor? As I pointed out, "access, means, motive". Add to the list a secretary (a few extra copies). Losing a "right" might be important to him/her.
Uh . . . No.
You actually haven’t pointed out anything. Just repeating “access, means, motive” is not an argument.
Access- who cleans their chambers/offices? Means- just stuff it in their pants/lunch box/whatever. Motive- anything from money to retribution for a perceived slight.
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
There is no proof that the leak came from the liberal side. It is more likely that the leak came from the Republican side on order to lock in the conservative votes on the Supreme Court. A hard-core reactionary judicial activist like Alito doesn't want any wavering by Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, who called Roe v. Wade eatablished precedent in their confirmation hearings.
Even simple math points to someone on the Republican side.
Ahhh, but in a leak case its always about who benefits.
Who benefits ... Roberts? I doubt he wanted to be painted with this ruling. Then of course there is the idiot Ginni Thomas who has proven herself quite capable at being stupidly nefarious. I'm avoiding the cleaning staff because they eventually get blamed for everything. In the end neither of us knows and stupid knee jerk articles such as this one pointing fingers reek of 'if we did it blame the other side' cover up.
I always like to focus on the obvious first. The leaker is probably someone who opposes the majority view and wants to bring pressure on the Court to turn one of the Justices and uphold a constitutional right to abortion. That's clear to anyone with an open mind. There is a chance we will find out who it was.
Not the brightest of moves in the web of partisan politics and you are all tangled up in it. BTW, 'obvious' and 'probable' make for an uncertain marriage.
I beg to differ. All the recent leaks have come from the same direction. All have been obvious.
You hold on to that Vic, I'm moving on to Perrie's far more interesting article.
Nice try. Now apply some common sense and you'll see who benefits.
So who hopes to benefit? Democrats.
#1 is likely true.
#2 is partially true.
#3 is where I would have leaked it to were I a conservative looking to see how it washed so as to rejig the final ruling.
#4 is pure conjecture, considering the average attention span of most americans the payout would have been far greater if they waited.
#5 is an after the fact no brainer.
What do you have against blogger sites, just about everyone left or right has one? Even Carrie Severino has one.
And of course Dems hope to benefit, it would be political malfeasance not to.
What's "partially true" about it? What's being discussed is a draft. Not the final signed document.
Given the that it's as trustworthy as John Gacy at a kids party, I wouldn't have sent it to them. But then again, I have the integrity to properly do my job.
Everything I laid out is conjecture. As I see it, the ONLY ones that have anything to gain from this are the Democrats. And that's still a stretch.
Don't have time for that kind of bullshit. ALL the mass media have proven themselves to be unreliable getting factual news out there.
Well that’s 100% incorrect we already know it was preplanned and orchestrated by the left so didn’t even try to sell that nonsense to those of us with superior intellect.
Lucky her.