In a surprising statement to The Wall Street Journal today, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito says he has a “pretty good idea” who leaked a draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. He strongly suggested that it was someone who opposed the opinion and wanted to pressure the justices not to go forward with the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Alito told the newspaper “I personally have a pretty good idea who is responsible, but that’s different from the level of proof that is needed to name somebody.”
Alito’s confidence runs counter to the two-page statement of the court that the team led by Marshal of the Supreme Court Gail Curley “has to date been unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence.” That is a standard lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” It is often used in civil cases, but the evidence was viewed as below that standard.
He added “It was a part of an effort to prevent the Dobbs draft…from becoming the decision of the court. And that’s how it was used for those six weeks by people on the outside—as part of the campaign to try to intimidate the court.”
The statement suggests that such information on the specific suspect was shared with the justices. If this was a clerk and the evidence is known to all of the justices, it would be interesting if the justice responsible for the appointment felt comfortable in recommending the young lawyer for later employment.
Alito’s statement contradicts those in the media like NPR’s Nina Totenberg who insisted that “the only [theory] that makes sense” is that a conservative leaked the opinion. At the time, I criticized Totenberg’s claim as entirely unsupported and illogical.
We know from the investigation that clerks (but not justices) were asked to sign affidavits after their interviews and the marshals emphasized that “If investigators later determine any personnel lied to the investigators, those personnel would be subject to prosecution for a false statement.”
In a weird way, it seems even more troubling that the likely culprit may have been identified, but has proceeded into practice as an attorney. As I have previously written, this was a crushing blow to the Court and its traditions of integrity and civility. You cannot be an attorney after violating these core principles of our profession. This is akin to being an atheist priest or an arsonist architect. It is simply incompatible with our core identity, including being “officers of the court.”
Whoever is responsible for this leak violated the most fundamental rules of ethics in our profession. It was a betrayal of not just the Court and the bar, but the public in shattering the confidentiality of the judicial process.
What is even more troubling is that, if the culprit were to come forward, the individual would likely be lionized by many. Indeed, I would not be surprised if, after the statute of limitations has passed, there could come a time when this person may want to take “credit” for this disgraceful act. However, that may not occur for some time since this person likely wants to continue to practice as a lawyer despite violating an oath, making false statements, and disrupting the highest court.
Yet, it did not change the result. Indeed, it may have backfired. If this was a liberal, the effort to pressure the Court may have only reinforced the resolve of the majority to hold firm on the position from the Dobbs draft.
Who Wants to Solve a Case Quickly, is Well Advised to Start with the Most Obvious: When you Hear Hoofbeats behind you, don’t Expect to See a Zebra!
I’m still depressed because my you tube [1] link had only a very short life on this blog, hosted by the stalwart of “Free Speech”. However, I have learned from my misguidance and don’t mention names in my comments.
Professor […] wrote on his twitter account (470K+ followers):
1. “I have previously heard that the Court had a particular individual in mind. There has even been a name referenced privately.”
Searching from these hearsays is a waste of time because – although their integrity is beyond doubt – it happens again and again that e.g employees exchange information about their work at home, relatives pass it on “under the seal of secrecy” and finally end up on the net.[3]
2 “Yet, […] confidence runs counter to the two-page statement of the court that the team led by Marshal of the Supreme Court […] ‘has to date been unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence.'”
Marshal’s 20-pages report mentioned (pp 8f) several “laws potential relevent for the investigation” [4], conducting “126 formal interviews of 97 personells (p 10) which ran 3/4 year. “Investigators also assessed the wide array of public speculation, mostly on social media, about any individual who may have disclosed the document. Several law clerks were named in various posts. In their inquiries, the investigators found nothing to substantiate any of the social media allegations regarding the disclosure” (p 16). Why didn’t they ask other law enforcement units for assistance? IF the FBI wants, it will name a suspect in a few days, MSM coverage + picture included!
A whistleblower [5] could also report this:
* SCOTUS Justice […] [6] hired […] as law clerk for future terms in 7/21. The Yale JD formerly clerked for […] and published about abortion law in journals and MSM. S/he married […], a journalist who wrote articles together with […], one of the authors of POLITICO’s piece in question.
3. “If this was a clerk and the evidence is known to all of the justices, […]”
then Senate panel could interview […], who is easily contacted as the retired judge maintains an office at SCOTUS.
[1] It’s unbelievable what channels are floating around here: On GBNews for example, the former President of National Trust for Scotland and Brithish TV presenter […] goes into the background of Sudan and Ukraine matters to outline how the corporations that control government need assistance from the military the government controls!
[2] Probably the next column, a piece from “The Hill”: […] collapsing world: Why a criminal plea could now be the best option for the […]. I doubt the we are already in an End Game scenario as there are still questions about possible bookkeeping errors.
[3] A comment on this blog: ” A friend of mine who recently retired from her position working at the SCOTUS as a senior secretary to one of the judges told me that they have known for some time who did it, that it was someone from the office of the recently retired liberal judge, […]. She wouldn’t name him, and I’m not entirely sure she knew the name, but it was out of that office.”
[4] https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/Dobbs_Public_Report_January_19_2023.pdf
[5] https://oig.justice.gov/hotline/whistleblower-protection
[6] In 9/22 CNN aired an interview with then retired […]:
Q: Within 24 hours the chief justice ordered an investigation of the leaker. Have they found him or her?
A: Not to my knowledge, but … I’m not privy to it.
Q: So in those months since, the chief justice never said, ‘Hey, we got our man or woman?’
A: To my knowledge, no!
I can’t prove it, but I’ve always believed the leaker to be Jumanj Brown Jackson Lee, owing to the timing of her arrival just a few weeks prior to the leak. Of course she was going to change the culture at the Court.
That the “leaker” may have conspired to incite assassination so as to reverse Dobbs is horrifying but believable speculation.
It is the conspiracy theory of all conspiracy theories, since the Kennedy brothers were assassinated in 1963 and 1968.
(BTW: RFK, Jr now says he believes CIA was involved in the murder of his uncle JFK and that Sirhan Sirhan did not shoot his father RFK.)
Assassination of Justice Kavanaugh was attempted after the Dobbs leak.
Thereafter, Biden/DOJ/FBI/Federal Protection Service and US Marshalls refused to send police forces to protect Justices in their homes against the mob.That could reasonably be construed to imply federal involvement in an assassination conspiracy against members of the Dobbs majority.
Elements of the US government were concerned about JFKs safety in 1963. My father (CIC) was involved in an effort to protect President Kennedy in Florida. This did not, to my knowledge, involve the Secret Service.
1789 – The American Founders adopted the Constitution which does not establish a right to abortion, but leaves the legality of abortion to the individual States.
No you don’t understand, it’s right there in the Commerce Clause next to the clause affording federal jurisdiction over education. You just need a crash course in authoritarian reading comprehension.
Point taken!
I stand corrected!
Allow me a moment to ring up Karl.
Casey found that the constitutional right to an abortion was grounded in the liberty and due process clause of the 14th amendment, not the commerce clause or the constitution as adopted in 1789.
The “Reconstruction Amendments” are invalid, illegitimate and unconstitutional to this day.
The Constitution is equitable and provides no bias or favor based on any criteria.
The “Reconstruction Amendments” were rammed through with a gun to America’s head under the duress of brutal, post-war, military occupation and oppression.
Not one, which is nigh on impossible, but THREE antithetical, partial and prejudicial amendments.
The “Reconstruction Amendments” nullify the Constitution and forcibly impose the communist thesis of Karl Marx on America.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
“They consider it…the lot of Abraham Lincoln…to lead his country through…the reconstruction of a social world.”
– Karl Marx to Abraham Lincoln, 1864
Texas Woman Testifies At Senate Hearing About Dobbs’ Impact
Amanda Zurawski, the Austin woman who developed a life-threatening infection when doctors delayed an abortion even though her fetus was not expected to survive, blasted Texas’ senators Wednesday, blaming them for her ordeal and potential infertility.
The senators, both Republicans, were not on hand for those comments. But Cornyn later agreed that Zurawski should not have had to wait for an abortion, given that doctors agreed a miscarriage was inevitable.
“Sounds like she’s got a good medical malpractice lawsuit,” he told reporters.
Cruz did not respond when offered the opportunity to comment through aides.
Edited From:
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2023/04/26/austin-woman-denied-emergency-abortion-blasts-cornyn-and-cruz-at-senate-hearing/
………………………………………………
This Dallas Daily News story downplays the medical and legal nightmare Mrs Zurawski was subjected to. Or perhaps the story is so well-known in Texas, this article felt no need to elaborate.
Mrs Zurawski WANTED the child in question. But a late-term infection guaranteed the baby would be stillborn.
Yet doctors not only refused to perform an abortion, they actually allowed Mrs Zurawski to reach a point of near-death before they removed the lifeless fetus.
This case illustrates the stupidity of Dobbs. Hospitals feel they must let women reach near-death status before doomed pregnancies are ended.
And here we actually have a quote from Republican Senator John Cornyn saying this woman should sue for malpractice. The Supreme Court should be sued for malpractice! They knowingly handed down a decision that has caused deadly confusion in every red state.
Wow! The world is not perfect.
Amazingly women still die in childbirth.
How hard did you have to fish to find one or two stories where the impact was negative ?
Do you undersand that through 99.99% of human history that women would have died ?
Regardless, we know the FACTS from Post and Pre-Rowe experience.
Rowe did not change the number of abortions.
It did not change the survival rate of women having abortions.
All it changed was where abortions took place.
Today there are a near infinite and afordable set of options for women before engaging in sex, as well as shortly after.
There are very very few reasons any woman would need and abortion past a few weeks.
The longer it takes a women to decide – the higher the cost and the greater the risk.
I would note that there will ALWAYS be some line. there will ALWAYS be a point at which you can no longer decide you are not going to have a child.
At the very least we are not allowing you to kill babies after they are born.
That is too late.
You do not get to change your mind that late.
The only debate here is When is the last point at which a women change decide not to have a child.
After Birth, At 6 months pregnant ?
At 6 weeks ?
Before conception ?
What is universally true is that earlier is safer, less controversial, cheaper and more moral.
And regardless of where you draw the line – there will be cases that just do not look good.
Easy answer. Exceptional circumstances (like death in the womb, outside of the womb implantation, rape, incest). General abortions should only happen at the level at which we can keep a child alive outside of the womb. Around 20-21 weeks currently. The better technology becomes, the closer that will become at conception — meaning abortions become unacceptable at all.
People will disagree, but I see this as the best option balancing both sides. It puts more emphasis on not becoming pregnant at all.
The Irish have always been luke warm on protecting the rights of the innocent unborn and have consistently put their personal pecuniary interests above all else. I like Jane Sullivan Roberts.
Everyone knows who she is. She’s been an abortion rights activist for years. Her husband is a close colleague of the reporter who received the leaked draft and broke the story.
Prosecute it. Prove it.
Send me the name on Twitter DM
@MendlovitzMark
JR, did you send the name to Mark A Mendlovitz?
Mark says:
April 30, 2023 at 12:48 AM
Send me the name on Twitter DM
@MendlovitzMark
Everyone knows who she is. The clerk has been an abortion rights activist for years and her husband is a close colleague of the reporter who received the leak and broke the story. Case closed.
Has that clerk gone on to a legal job? Where?
Evil is often more clever than good and this may yet be another example.
Progressives are Jacobins and could not care less about destroying our institutions. Tote berg is just a plain leftist idiot who has only the most primitive understanding of law.
Alito Feels Betrayed
Unloads To Wall Street Journal
We’re being bombarded,” Alito complained, “and then those who are attacking us say: ‘Look how unpopular they are. Look how low their approval rating has sunk.’
“Well, yeah, what do you expect when … day in and day out, ‘They’re illegitimate. They’re engaging in all sorts of unethical conduct. They’re doing this, they’re doing that’?”
Such attacks, he said, “undermine confidence in the government [as] it’s one thing to say the court is wrong; it’s another thing to say it’s an illegitimate institution”.
Edited From:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-samuel-alito-this-made-us-targets-of-assassination-dobbs-leak-abortion-court-74624ef9
…………………………………………
Alito feels a sense of entitlement. His Federalist majority is ‘entitled’ to the respect that Supreme Court justices have historically enjoyed. The American public is supposed to accept the premise that this court is ‘new and improved’ and therefore entitled to overturn longstanding precedents.
In reality, the Dobbs decision was breathtakingly stupid! 50 years of precedent was vaporized to create vast depths of unsettled law. And all this to please religious conservatives at a time when the western world is moving AWAY from religion.
The United States has devoted decades of military spending to containing religious extremists in the Middle East. Then, here at home, our highest court is hijacked by religious extremists. They then issue what amounts to a declaration of war on women while cloaking it as a constitutional ‘correction’.
And now, the author of that opinion, Samuel Alito, goes sobbing to The Wall Street Journal because, “No one likes us anymore”. What a creep!! Everyone under 50 can only count the days until Alito, Thomas and the rest of these creeps are gone.
You are in America under the Constitution. You don’t like it. Why stay? I hear Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, China et al. are nice this time of year. Roe v. Wade was pure illicit corruption. Concurring Justices of the Roe court must have been impeached and convicted for manifest crimes of high office, according to the law. They attempted to illicitly amend the Constitution – the Lincolnesque highest of crimes. The Roe court had no power to amend the Constitution. There is no national right to abortion in the Constitution. Abortion must have been and must be legislated by each individual State.
Alito, a sham CINO conservative, “goes sobbing.” The American Founders effected an 11.6% turnout in 1789 while applying vote criteria as male, European, 21, 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres, requiring immigrants to be “free white person(s)” within the year of adoption of the Constitution, and, thereby, severely limiting and restricting infinitesimal self-government and providing maximal freedom to individuals. The American Founders and their Constitution were the very definition of conservative, retaining no intent to tolerate liberals, comrade.
George, You are asking why stay in America if you don’t like it? Well, why do you stay considering you strongly oppose the following amendments to the Constitution: 13, 14, 15, 19, and 26.
They were “injurious” and improperly ratified by criminals of high office under the force of arms, the very force which will ultimately be reversed.
The restricted vote of men represented and benefited entire normal families.
Why split the vote among husbands and wives (i.e. those necessary for the perpetuation of the people of the nation).
The 19th is a pointless, hysterical and incoherent promotion of that which is deviant, serving only to reduce the solemnity and import of the vote.
https://youtu.be/JB9sfe_mQ1I
________________________
”And if there are amendments desired, of such a nature as will not injure the constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow citizens; the friends of the federal government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished.”
– James Madison, Proposed Amendments to the Constitution, June 8, 1789
____________________________________________________________
“A [one man, one vote] democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”
– Henning W. Prentis
_________________
“[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin
___________
“This is not a democracy. Everybody doesn’t get to do what they want to do. Everybody doesn’t get to do what they feel like doing.”
– Nick Saban
I guess you’re simply too stupid to understand that Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that Roe versus Wade was bad law. But we expect stupid from you.
RBG upheld Roe and Casey many times as a Justice and I think it’s fair to say that she would have agreed with the dissent in Dobbs.
She should have been impeached and convicted for abuse of power, usurpation of power, subversion, nullification and arbitrary and unconstitutional amendment of the Constitution.
Abortion is a State issue.
If after calling RVW a bad law she voted to uphold it, then she’s a hypocrite
“Roe v. Wade, in contrast, invited no dialogue with legislators. In- stead, it seemed entirely to remove the ball from the legislators’ court. In 1973, when Roe issued, abortion law was in a state of change across the nation. As the Supreme Court itself noted, there was a marked trend in state legislatures “toward liberalization of abortion statutes.”‘ Thatmovement for legislative change ran parallel to another law revision ef- fort then underway-the change from fault to no-fault divorce regimes, a reform that swept through the state legislatures and captured all of them
No measured motion, the Roe decision left virtually no state with laws fully conformhrfg to the Court’s delineation of abortion regulation still permissible. Around that extraordinary decision, a well-organized and vocal right-to-life movement rallied and succeeded, for a considera- ble time, in turning the legislative tide in the opposite direction.
__Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Justice RBG following Supreme Court precedent neither makes her a hypocrite nor provides appropriate grounds for impeachment and conviction.
RBG was a C- jurist and a mediocre writer. She deserves no credit for observing ( belatedly and retrospectively) the damage that Roe did to federalism, the Tenth Amendment and state powers. How is it that professional women today idolize such an unimpressive lawyer? I think her (inexplicable) friendship with Scalia gave RBG undeserved intellectual credibility with legal academics. And, of course, the feminists and other identity ideologues of Left loved her because she was the first leftist female Justice.
Was Brown v. Board also breathtakingly stupid?
In reality, the Dobbs decision was breathtakingly stupid! 50 years of precedent was vaporized to create vast depths of unsettled law. And all this to please religious conservatives at a time when the western world is moving AWAY from religion.
There is a tendency among liberals to treat the Supreme Court as just one more political branch of government. But that’s not its role: its role is to interpret the law, most notably, to interpret the Constitution. Roe had no basis in the Constitution’s text or history, and because it lacked that foundation it was never accepted as legitimate by a huge segment of the population. Even pro-choice legal scholars such as John Hart Eli, and Akhil Amar admit this:
Today, the Supreme Court’s 1973 opinion in Roe v. Wade, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, is similarly ripe for reversal. In the eyes of many constitutional experts across the ideological spectrum, it too lacks solid grounding in the Constitution itself, as Justice Alito demonstrates at length in his leaked Dobbs draft. (Full disclosure: The draft cites me and several others as constitutional scholars who oppose Roe but personally support abortion rights.) Even the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was sharply critical of the decision.
https://akhilamar.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/The-End-of-Roe-v.-Wade-WSJ-1.pdf
https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/15536/50_82YaleLJ920_1972_1973_.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
Roe also removed a politically sensitive topic from the democratic process – a recipe for unrest. Dobbs restored the topic of abortion to its rightful place by releasing it back to the democratic process – where it always belonged given the Constitution’s silence on the subject. Dobbs thereby corrected the Supreme Court’s error in Roe.
“the Dobbs decision was breathtakingly stupid! 50 years of precedent was vaporized to create vast depths of unsettled law.”…
From the bowels of the demon loving abortion murderers themselves.
Well, it’s a good thing that some precedents are overturned, especially those concerning blacks.
The court has overturned longstanding precedents before. The original Roe decision was wrongly decided. The Texas law was giving them procedural heartburn and they couldn’t sit on the fence forever. As politicians, they probably felt that it was best to bite the bullet right before the 2022 midterms so the backlash against their decision would be somewhat cancelled by the backlash against Biden. They were correct if they assumed that. But I do think the court majority failed to appreciate how big a decision this would be. And most people on our side still don’t understand the long term and escalating political repercussions that will be reverberating for decades from Dobbs.
The Supreme Court should be required to appear in a joint hearing of both the House and Senate to see if they are worth keeping their jobs. Failure to appear would result in an immediate loss of power and removal from the bench.
Robert – that’s not gonna happen. Such a requirement would violate separation of powers.
Jonathan: Sherlock Holmes is here to help you solve the, so far, unanswered Q of who leaked the Dobbs decision. The first thing we have to ask is who might have the motive and opportunity? All the 97 clerks have been interviewed and all deny they leaked the draft opinion. Why would a clerk jeopardize his/her job or future employment by engaging in such an act? Doesn’t make sense. That leaves one of the Supremes. We don’t know whether any were interviewed. Even if one admitted to leaking the draft what could Chief Justice Roberts do? Can’t fire a Justice with lifetime tenure.
Naturally, Watson and I looked at the scene of the crime and reviewed all the clerk interviews. Nothing there. Finally, and after a little opium, the answer was crystal clear. I turned to my close associate and said: “It’s elementary, Watson, when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”. Watson and I agreed. The culprit was the person who wrote the draft opinion–Justice Alito.
Alito certainly had the opportunity. We already know he leaked the Hobby Lobby opinion to his dinner guests. That was confirmed by Christian minister Rob Schenck. So with that prior experience the only remaining Q is what might have been Alito’s motive? As we often do, Watson and I turned to a specialist in such matters–Robert Reich who told us: “Alito has a motive for leaking. He wrote the draft in Dobbs and got four other justices to tentatively sign on. He presumably wanted to lock them in. Leaking the draft was a way to do so”.
As you can tell I love Sherlock Holmes. But you have to ask yourself the Q, who else but Alito had the opportunity and motive to leak the draft? Alito now claims he has a pretty good idea who leaked the draft but isn’t saying. You would think Alito would want to take the heat off himself by naming names. I don’t buy that diversionary tactic.
And what is your take? You defend Alito by also using deflection: “If this was a liberal, the effort to preserve the Court may have only reinforced the resolve of the majority to hold firm on the position from the Dobbs draft.” The operative word is “If”. Trying to shift the blame, without any evidence, to a “liberal” Justice is pure speculation and can serve only some political purpose.
The Court is now consumed in scandal. Roberts probably knows who leaked the draft. But he now appears to be a empty robe–a Chief Justice unwilling or unable to address the scandals inside his court– Alito, Thomas and now Gorsuch. Roberts refuses to work with the Senate to come up with mandatory ethic rules for the Court that every other judge and government official is bound to follow. Roberts has thumbed his nose at the law and undermined the reputation of the Court. What else could we could expect in this “age of rage”?
Dear Dennis: thank you for this well-written and thoughtful piece. Add to what you said is the fact that Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett all lied about their position on abortion, just to get a seat on the Court. They refuse to be bound by the Code of Judicial Conduct. And, these people wonder why they don’t enjoy popular support?
They did not lie. You just don’t like the answers that they gave, because they don’t accord to what you want to believe.
“…Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett all lied about their position on abortion, just to get a seat on the Court.”
– NUTCHACHACHA
________________
Boy, she sure fooled us.
Candidates cannot take a position on abortion.
Candidates cannot prejudge any future case in appointment hearings.
You go, girl, oh, and speaking of lying “…just to get a [free] seat…,” may we end welfare payments and affirmative action yet or do you still need the “assistance” of that charity to be a real person?
DARREN, speculations about possible leaker got virial the day after POLITCO published Alito’s 1st draft. Or in other words: A year ago!
Anyone interested in this topic also knows the two names that circulated. They were omnipresent.
I’m sorry that I was misguided in posted one (out of many) links. However, it was only short lived:
Our sisters of the darker hue?
Is it possible to excise the rotten parts from our institutions without rendering them unrecognizable? I just answer my own question. In reality, many are already drastically diminished, corrupt to the core, and cringe worthy.
A Circular Conversation happens when both parties have opposing positions on an issue, dig in, and reiterate the merits of their position ad nauseum. It doesn’t end with resolution, it ends either with one or both people giving up from sheer exhaustion.
Gaslighting is the circular conversation that you have where no one ever wins. It is the argument that never ends, because there is no resolution that is satisfactory to the narcissist, who never compromises. It is the projection of the narcissist’s deficits back onto you, because he cannot take accountability for anything that he has ever said or done. It is the crazy making, the name calling, the false accusations, and the omission of the truth.
Gaslighting is the communication that never goes anywhere. It is the relationship talks that cause you to always feel like the ultimate loser. It is the way in which the narcissist always makes you feel like the crazy one, or the way he always projects to others that you are crazy, when you are not diagnosed with any mental disorder. Gaslighting is the way the narcissist lowers your guard, makes you feel like the schmuck, and causes you to apologize to him for things that are his own fault.
A person who is subjected to gaslighting for any length of time, will eventually become extremely mentally ill from it. They will lose their own grip on reality in the presence of the narcissist. They will become neurotic and jealous, constantly feeling as though they cannot trust the narcissist. They will pick fights where there were none, or become victim to the narcissist always blaming and shaming them for behavior that is normal and expected. The narcissist begins to change the reality of the normal person, to the extent that the normal person eventually begins to see the world from the skewed lens that is the narcissist’s reality.
FIND WHOM IS GASLIGHTING THE ISSUE, THEN YOU WILL HAVE FOUND YOUR NARCISSIST, AND THERE YOU HAVE IT, YOU HAVE FOUND YOUR OPINION LEAKER.
Revealing the leaker would likely reveal the complicity of one of the Justices.
FAKE NEWS from NPR’s Nina Totenberg “who insisted that “the only [theory] that makes sense” is that a conservative leaked the opinion”…
TRUTH: Leftists and Dems consistently accuse others of what they themselves have done.
PROOF- FAKE CLAIMS AGAINST TRUMP/CONSERVATIVES …
– Of colluding with Russia when we know that Biden family did and Barack Obama was caught doing just that on a hot mic.
– Using taxpayer money for a quid-pro quo in Ukraine, but we know Joe Biden threatened to withhold millions to protect Hunter’s Burisma.
– of being a spy while they paid a foreign spy to create a fake dossier on Trump and used it to get a court order to spy on his campaign.
– but told citizens to lock down and shut down, while Newsome, Pritzker, Whitmer, Lightfoot, Pelosi, etc. felt they were entitled to do whatever they wanted.
– Lied and said Trump called neo-Nazis “very fine people,” while Dems defended “antifa” billion dollar destruction as “peaceful protests”
– Called Jan 6 an insurrection, but Dems praised “Black Lives Matter” amid arsons, assaults, and murders and supported TN Democrats for disrupting an official proceeding and disorderly conduct in the TN Capitol while Biden invited them (not the dead kids’ families) to the WH
– Say conservatives removing sexually explicit porn out of schools is “banning books,” while they try to get Dahl, Twain, Harper Lee, Salinger, etc.
If a Democrat says you are doing it, they already did it.
Not mentioned by anyone above but it was well known that Justice Abe Fortas discussed cases before the court with then President LBJ. While an associate Justice he also attended White House briefings, advised Johnson on judicial nominees and even wrote some speeches for the president.
There are two reasons I can think of why the leaker is not likely to be a SCOTUS justice. First, they would be aware that their actions are so in violation of both the judicial code of conduct and the law, that they wouldn’t do it. Not only for reasons of conscience, but because the consequences of being found out would be harsh. They’d have the most to lose, and moreover, it is uncharacteristic of any appellate judge to even think about doing something that far over the line.
Second, if Alito suspected one of his eight colleagues, I don’t believe he would have said anything to the media about it.
IMHO, the most interesting theory in the comments so far is from someone who has an inside line to someone on the Supreme Court staff (à la “I know a guy”) who indicates the leak came from former Justice Breyer’s office. Of course, Breyer had already retired and so presumably he only had a skeleton staff at the time, which narrows it down even further. This person says the source is reliable. (You can see his/her comments earlier in this discussion.)
The commenter you referenced was beating a dead horse!
Her friend don’t need to name HER, because two days after the incident SPECULATION got viral [1]. A day earlier, another name was circled. All that occured short of ONE YEAR!
[1] https://twitter.com/willchamberlain/status/1521685968939630592
[2] https://twitter.com/MattWolking/status/1521303528421171203
Speculation isn’t fact.
Lies aren’t facts.
Alito and Thomas are the only members of the Court who can be counted on to interpret the Constitution as it was written and amended. I pray that they each live to be a hundred and retire at ninety at the earliest.