Below is my column in The Hill on a growing crisis at the Supreme Court for Chief Justice John Roberts. A new breach of confidentiality shows cultural crisis at the Court. While the earlier leaking of the Dobbs decision could have come from a clerk, much of the recent information could only have originated with a justice.
Here is the column:
Chief Justice John Roberts has always been “a man more sinned against than sinning.” That line from Shakespeare’s “King Lear” seems increasingly apt for the head of our highest court.
Roberts was installed almost exactly 20 years ago and soon found himself grappling with a series of controversies that have rocked the court as an institution.
He is now faced with another monumental scandal, after the New York Times published leaked confidential information that could only have come from one of the nine members of the court.
By most accounts, Roberts is popular with his colleagues and someone with an unquestioning institutional knowledge and loyalty. He is, in many respects, the ideal chief justice: engaging, empathetic, and unfailingly respectful of the court’s justices and staff.
Roberts has been chief justice during some of the court’s most contentious times. Major decisions like overturning Roe v. Wade (which Roberts sought to avoid) have galvanized many against the court.
According to recent polling, fewer than half of Americans (47 percent) hold a favorable opinion of the court (51 percent have an unfavorable view). Of course, that level of support should inspire envy in the court’s critics in Congress (18 percent approval) and the media (which only 32 percent trust).
Some, however, want to express their dissatisfaction more directly and even permanently. This week, Alaskan Panos Anastasiou, 76, was indicted with 22 federal charges for threatening to torture and kill the six conservative justices.
Another man, Nicolas Roske, 28, will go on trial next June for attempting to assassinate Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
In the meantime, law professors have rallied the mob, calling for them to be more aggressive against the conservative justices and even calling for Congress to cut off their air conditioning to make them retire.
Politicians have also fueled the rage against the court. On one infamous occasion, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) declared in front of the Supreme Court, “I want to tell you, [Neil] Gorsuch, I want to tell you, [Brett] Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.”
Yet, it is what has occurred inside the court that should be most troubling for Roberts. On May 2, 2022, someone inside the court leaked to Politico a copy of the draft of the opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturning Roe v. Wade.
It was one of the greatest breaches of ethics in the court’s history. The subsequent investigation failed to produce any charges for the culprit or culprits.
Now, the New York Times has published highly detailed accounts of the internal deliberations of the court. The account seemed largely directed at the conservative justices and Roberts.
Some of the information on deliberations in three cases (Trump v. Anderson, Fischer v. United States, and Trump v. United States) had to come either directly or indirectly from a justice. Some of these deliberations were confined to members of the court.
Seeing a pattern in this and past leaks, one law professor, Josh Blackmun, went so far as to suggest that it is “likely that [Justice Elena] Kagan, or at least Kagan surrogates, are behind these leaks.”
That remains pure speculation. Yet after the earlier Dobbs leak, Roberts is now dealing with leaks coming out of the confidential conference sessions and memoranda of the justices. This occurs after Roberts pledged that security protocols had been strengthened to protect confidentiality.
The disclosure of this information to third parties violates Canon 4(D)(5) of judicial ethics: “A judge should not disclose or use nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity for any purpose unrelated to the judge’s official duties.”
Roberts and the court have long maintained that judicial ethics rules that apply to other federal judges are merely advisory for them.
However, some in Congress are now pushing for new binding ethics rules that could make fundamental changes to the court. Justice Kagan is supporting the ethical changes, which would allow lower court judges to render judgment on the justices. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also declared publicly that she does not “have any problem” with an enforceable ethics code for the Supreme Court.
A truly “enforceable” code would presumably allow the lower court judges appointed by the chief justice to compel the removal of a justice from a given case. That could flip the outcome on a closely divided court.
Given the latest leak, what would such a panel do with a justice who has breached the confidentiality of internal judicial deliberations? Under the Constitution, a justice can be removed by Congress only through impeachment. Impeachment of a justice has happened only once, in 1805, when Associate Justice Samuel Chase was acquitted.
Roberts has the demeanor and decency of a great chief justice. Despite those strengths, however, some are now wondering if he has the drive and determination to confront his colleagues on a worsening situation at the court. Many years ago, I believed that Roberts erred in failing to publicly rebuke Justice Samuel Alito for publicly displaying disagreement with President Barack Obama during a State of the Union address. Although I was sympathetic with Alito’s objections to Obama’s misleading statements about the Citizens United ruling, it was still a breach of judicial decorum.
Roberts is a good chief in bad times. He can hardly be blamed for the alleged abandonment of the most fundamental ethical principles by justices or clerks. Yet, the court is now in an undeniable crisis of faith. For decades, institutional faith and fealty have maintained confidentiality and civility. Once again, that tradition has been shattered by the reckless and self-serving conduct of those entrusted with the court’s business.
For a man who truly reveres the court, it is an almost Lear-like betrayal of an isolated and even tragic figure. It is time for an institutional reckoning for Roberts in calling his colleagues to account.
While there have been a few prior leaks, the Supreme Court has been largely immune from the weaponized leaks so characteristic of Washington. In a city that floats on leaks, the court was an island of integrity. And more has been lost at the court than just confidentiality. There is a loss of confidence, even innocence, at an institution that once aspired to be something more than a source for the New York Times.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).
As you will recall when the Dobbs papers were leaked, I made it clear then that the reason the Court was unable to determine the source, wasn’t because they didn’t know. It was because the source was one of the Justices!!!!!!
While an analysis of Roberts’ tenure as Chief Justice is interesting, one must question why the recalcitrant Associate Justice and his/her staff, responsible for these breeches, haven’t been identified and punished.
This is hardly a surprise. We are in a tight election and the Democrats have done everything possible to destroy a court that they do not like and which has kept them under control as it was designed to do. The Court is there to render judgment of the highest and most profound cases. It is also supposed to have lifetime tenure in good behavior. And it is also there to be a counter so that the choices of Presidents linger long after they have left office. It prevents the swing in new directions or counter directions that could prove iniminical to good order and continuity.
The Democrats grew lazy. After FDR, replaced 7 of the 9 justices they expected to have their way in all decisions and it continued decades longer than it should have because Republicans were sloppy in their own picks until Reagan, W, and Trump and suddenly the Court returned as a counterbalance to tyranny by the majority and it stopped the progressive and leftist shift in it’s tracks.
Is it any surprise that this came from The NY Times. That paper has been the Enemy of the Republic since the 1930’s. Is it any surprise that it attacks the 6 conservatives. It sauces up the flagging presidential campaign of Kamala Harris and just springs the October surprise in September.
About the only thing as big was when Abe Fortas (appointed by the Democrats) talked over pending cases with LBJ. Eventually he was chosen to be Chief Justice but his machinations came to light and even Democrats balked and blocked his appointment as chief justice and he finally had the good graces to resign entirely from the court
Make no mistake about it, this is just assassination by other means. Trump is a threat to Democracy —>> 2 attempts at outright assasination, The Conservatives “reap the the whirlwind” —>>2 assassination attempts against 6 justices (wonder who?) And now assassination by ink.
The democrats and NY Times are waging a dangerous game. It could blow up in their faces.
Bullets, slings and arrows can fly in both directions.
Leaks issue aside, Roberts very much appears to be more interested in the public perception of the Court (and, presumably, himself) than in its fidelity to the U. S. Constitution, and Turley seems to admire that. I find that motivation and evaluation thoroughly disturbing in a SCOTUS Chief Justice and a professor of Constitutional law.
Agreed
But it is a reason he is likely to find a way to put a stop to this
It’s been revealed lately that many folks in the Biden administration have duel citizenship with a particular foreign country. Do any of the SC Justices have duel citizenship with this particular country?
Bulldust. You are a liar and an antisemite.
By the way, an equal or greater amount of public support was for the overturning of RoevsWade.
I don’t believe this is a true crisis but rather just shenanigans perpetrated by the liberal side of the court unhappy that rulings are not going their misguided way.
Equal or greater support for the overturning of Roe v Wade is absolutely not true. Please provide a source.
What is absolutely not true is that Roe v. Wade was overturned.
Roe v. Wade never existed in valid, legitimate, licit, or constitutional form.
Roe v. Wade was not overturned.
The Constitution was implemented.
Totally off topic, the claim was that half or most of Americans were in favor of getting rid of Roe v. Wade which is untrue.
Let me put it to you like this where you can understand. If you like your abortion doctor, you can keep your abortion doctor. This will be decided at the state level, should the state you reside in not be to the liking of your choice, move to a different state or advocate for a different vote on the matter.
Great answer, Traveler. I might steal it.
Let me put it to you how you can understand: the states controlling abortion rights is, and always has been, a red herring. Just another way way for minority opinion to hold sway over the majority. Abortion rights apartheid….
Settle it once and for all in states with ancient abortion laws on the books…, put a ballot initiative in every anti abortion state and watch every single one vote for reproductive freedom.
Every state that’s been bold enough to do it sees the initiative go pro reproductive freedom.
Your statement doesn’t validate the lie about how the public feels about abortions.
You might be correct, Enigma, but that is the wrong question. The question should be, who should control abortion law, the state or the federal government? If that question were asked, the tables would be reversed.
The question should be, who should control abortion law, the state or the federal government?
I would phrase it differently – and maybe this is what you were getting at – but I would say: the question is, under the US Constitution, who gets to control abortion law – that is to say, are the states permitted to regulate abortion?
From 1973-2022 the answer was, essentially, no. It was in the domain of the federal courts. But that was a usurpation: the Constitution does not restrict the states’ ability to regulate abortion. Dobbs correctly recognized this and overturned the illegitimate ruling issued in 1973 as modified slightly in 1992. But even with the 1992 modification, the Supreme Court’s approach to abortion was illegitimate. In 2022 it restored legitimacy to that subject.
Enigma is not correct
What the majority support depends on how the question is asked
Bug knows that
He is just lying
“What the majority support depends on how the question is asked”
John, Enigma defined the question with limitations. ” half or most of Americans were in favor of getting rid of Roe v. Wade which is untrue.”
I saw numbers that agree with Enigma’s statement. That is why I defined the question differently, which changed the answer. Oldman furthered the definition and related it more to the Constitution.
I think Enigma’s phrasing was correct, but I don’t believe Enigma understood the nuances involved.
As phrased it is likely true that less than half of people wanted to return the issue to the states
Even I believe fully returning it to the states is a constitutional error and a mistake
Contra thomas there is an unrecognized constitutional right to control of your own body (bell v buck a decision more vile than koramatsu is still good law)
But control of your body
Does not mean a right to kill the fetus
Only remove it
But most people beleive as Clinton stated
Abortion should be legal and rare
In much of the world it is illegal after 15 weeks
SCOTUS could have decided that
Further restricting abortion but preserving it at the federal level and there would not have been the political blowback
That would not have been the constitutionally correct choice but neither is dobbs
If you actually look at the history on unenumerated rights
Our founders expect them to be numerous
When the early Supreme Court failed to follow through
The 14th amendment privileges and immunities clause was intended to say
We really mean it
But SCOTUS has been horrible at recognizing unenumerated rights
John, when one talks of returning that decision to the states, that does not infer a woman does not have a “constitutional right to control of your (her) own body,” nor infer the right to kill the fetus. This means that Roe v Wade was incorrectly decided upon and canceled. Since previously there were no Supreme Court decisions regarding abortion, things reverted to what they were before. New Constitutional arguments can now be presented.
Control of your own body is an actual natural right
Killing a fetus is not
Rights are protected by the constitution and states can not infringe on them
A state can not prevent a woman from having the fetus removed
It can prevent her from killing it if it is possible for it to survive
Provide a source that is not true
The fact is that most want Some legal abortions
And most oppose some abortions
Several polls had super majority support for near absolute bans after 22weeks
A few polls had majority support for near absolute bans after 15 weeks
The voters in every state given the chance are making clear their opinion including red states like Kansas and even Florida is about to find out. Most people do want some legal abortions which most Republican legislators don’t want to provide them. It’s such a losing issue that most wish Roe v Wade was still in place.
“Most people do want some legal abortions which most Republican legislators don’t want to provide them.”
Enigma, that is not true, and if you decided to research your thoughts, you would discover that you are wrong.
EB
Your off in la la land
Absolutely supermajorities do not want an absolute ban on abortion
But you ignore the fact that the converse is also true
Supermajorities of people also do not want unlimited abortion through to birth or beyond
I have said repeatedly that dobbs is wrong constitutionally
Though so is roe
But independent fact of the constitutionality
Is the political
You are atleast partly right that the gop has lost the political battle so far
But that loss is not total and seems to be fading
Bill Clinton’s statement that people want abortion to be safe legal and rare pretty well sums up the majority
But it is not the position of either political party
I would also note that you need to get outside your bubble
You speak of abortion as if there are only two diametrically opposite views
And that one is right and the other wrong
I would agree that most people dont want unlimited abortion, particularly beyond birth which is illegal in all 50 states and advocated by less people than I could count on my fingers. I’ve heard Trump taking one person out of context, he also says Kamala Harris never worked at MacDonalds.
Check out Minnesota. It is difficult to discuss complex situations with one who is unaware of his surroundings and refuses to check out the facts.
Most people do not want abortion after 6 months except in the most extreme cases
Despite the fact that is legal in many states
Do you have a single person except Harris who saw Harris working at a McDonald’s?
McDonald’s has no record
She can not name a coworker
There is no one who worked at a McDonald’s that remembers working with her
I can name all my summer jobs
The people I worked with
And they remember me
I do not know if Harris worked at McDonald’s
I know that given the evidence the odds are low
A huge percentage of MacDonalds workers work for franchisees, not the corporation. As a teenager and during college, I worked as a paper boy for the Minneapolis Star& Tribune and can’t recall a single worker (other than my brother), I worked in telemarketing for the Litchfield Land Corp. and for a Anheuser Busch distributor in Nashville briefly. I don’t know the names of any of my coworkers or bosses.
You are telling me she can’t name a coworker; how do you know that? How do you know that nobody remembers her? I can name all the companies I worked for, the people not so much.
If Harris would state what mcds she worked for that would help
Only about 60% of mcds are franchises
I can not comment on your poor memory
But most of us know where we worked during college
Who our bosses and coworkers were
If you can not do those things
It is reasonable for people to distrust you
How is it one can tell whether Harris is telling the truth?
She does not remember the location
Her boss
Her coworkers
The only thing she remembers is
“I did fries”
That is not alot to go on
Even you have provided more details than Harris
I would further note
This poor a recollection is not a good attribute for a president
We already have one demented commander in chief
If you want to be believed
Provide some support
There is more evidence cats are being eaten in Springfield than that Harris worked at McDonald’s
Btw it is not working at McDonald’s that matters
It is the high probability that she is lying
Even the choice of McDonald’s suggests she is lying
McDonald’s was about 1/3 of all fast food at the time
And a tiny fraction of college jobs
She could have answered as you did
No one would have challenged that
But working at McDonald’s is iconic
And democrats love to lie about iconic things
There is no panash to working as a telemarketer
There is a bit to being a paperboy
Though being a paperboy in college is a bit weird
What is your basis for saying she doesn’t remember any of those things, because Trump says so?
What is my basis ?
Her failure to provide ANY support for her claim
One of the ways you determine if people are lying is by what details – especially verifiable details they can provide
Successfully lying about past experiences that you never had is extremely difficult
If Harris worked at McDonald’s she would be able to talk about it in a way that painted a picture of the experience
Stormy Daniel’s did a good job of telling her story about her alleged liaison with trump
She covered a fair amount of details
At the very least she had studied the layout of trumps room
But she failed when her recollection of her own hotel her room how she got from one to the other was missing all the same details
And frankly completely wrong
Harris is not even lying well
Her story is “I did fries”
Nothing else
She has not even said much about making fries at McDonald’s
She has not said things even customers know
I have no idea what trump has said about Harris and McDonald’s
I know what Harris has said
And more importantly
I know what Harris has not said
She has not provided a verifiable detail
She has not even provided unverifiable details
That is a big clue she is lying
If Harris took the time to fight every lie told by Trump she’d never have time to do anything else. It’s a shame that Obama had to produce his birth certificate to dispute Trump’s claim that he wasn’t born in Hawaii. Trump siad she skipped meeting Netanyahu to attend a “sorority party” when in fact the was the featured speaker at the National Convention of a sorority which had been on the books for almost a year. If you need to believe she never worked at McDonalds because she never proved it to your satisfaction, go right ahead. Maybe you should start a petition to call for a Special Counsel to investigate. Meanwhile, Trump has a sentencing date in November.
This is not about alleged lies told by trump
Regardless Harris has her faithfull puppy dog leftist media to screw up fact checking trump
This is about Harris floating a weak claim without evidence
There is more evidence that Haitians in Springfield are eating cats that that Harris worked at McDonald’s
Harris can fix that by providing something verifiable about her claim
Or admitting she is lying
The birther attack on Obama was started by Clinton operative Sydney blumenthal
Atleast get your facts straight
I do not recall trump making a specific claim regarding Obama
Only questioning why Obama would not produce his birth certificate
The certificate the wh eventually produced was edited so there are still questions
There is no doubt Obama was born in Hawaii
Nor is an infant responsible for the behavior of adults
But there are still questions
We do not have a right to know the answers
Just as we have no right to know about trump and Daniel’s
Nor do we have a right to know if Harris worked at McDonald’s
But she volunteered the claim
Meeting with world leaders trumps sorority parties
These events get bumped all the time if your president
Eight thousand women came to Indianapolis expecting to see and hear Kamala Harris. As Vice-President, what exactly was Harris supposed to do with Netanyahu attending a House Republican political rally.
“expecting to see and hear Kamala Harris. …./what exactly was Harris supposed to do “
Responsibility comes with a price. What did she do about the border?
Make arrangements to see a close ally of the us who is in the midst of a multifront war with terrorists
Should FDR have ignored Churchill for a meeting with the DAR ?
Meeting Netanyahu is part of the job
Meeting women in Indianapolis is just politics
Harris made it clear politics was more important than the job
And should be judged accordingly
I would note tha a VP or president can always create conflicts like this to avoid the tough parts of the job if they want to
Biden went to the beech in Delaware with a hurricane approaching
Harris chose to campaign elsewhere
Those choices tell us their values
Participating in a political stunt arranged by Republican House members isn’t part of the job. The event you suggest she created was planned 2 years in advance. The same event in 2026 will be in Nashville. The world doesn’t revolve around Republican stunts.
https://youtu.be/YhCpiGBkXZU
Calling something names does not change reality
Do you think that Churchill traveling to the us prior to pearl harbor was any less of a political stunt ?
Do you think FDR should have blown him off for the DAR ?
Shoul Biden skip out on going to the situation room during a possible nuclear attack because he has a pr event in the rose garden scheduled way in advance
Harris made her preferences and priorities clear
Btw scheduling in advance does not make something less political
Everything is political
Everything is not equally important
You are free to beleive one political event on a two year cycle is more important than meeting with our most important ally in the midst of an existential war in one of the most important unstable regions of the world matters less
But that view is not shared by many
You are both extremely poor at critical thinking and trapped in an ideological bubble
My criticisms of you arguments are so obvious you should have anticipated them
But your inability to see outside your bubble leaves you constantly blind to the obvious
Harris is the Vice President, not the President and doesn’t always meet with foreign leaders. I’ve seen hundreds of press conferences featuring the leaders of other nations along with Presidents from either Party and rarely see vice presidents present.
Harris and Biden didn’t need a political stunt to speak to Netanyahu, they have their own channels. Meeting with him in that environment weakens the American leaders which they shouldn’t agree to.
You are comparing emergencies to something politically expedient for Republicans with no benefit for the administration. Netanyahu was then and is now biting the hand feeding him and ignoring American wishes.
“Harris is the Vice President, not the President
Enigma, the President was removed from the ticket because of his cognitive abilities. That makes the vice president, Kamala Harris, more important at the White House. That you refuse to understand her responsibilities is revealing and should distress anyone who believes you to be a rational man.
” didn’t need a political stunt to speak to Netanyahu”
Netanyahu’s visit to the US wasn’t a political stunt. He is the leader of a significant American ally in the US on an issue that affects the entire world. Did you notice the missiles flying, or were you too engrossed in your hatred for Trump?
Contrary to what you ignorantly say, Netanyahu has eliminated terrorists who killed Americans and should have been eliminated by the US years ago.
“Harris is vp not p”
ROFL
Who is p ?
Regardless she is running for president
She claims to have good relationships with world leaders
ROFL
You keep repeating
Political stunt
As if that somehow means something
Yes republicans invited Bibi
So what ?
Yes it was political
So was Zelenskyy
So was Churchill
So is every visit to or from every world leader
When you keep repeating the obvious as if it is somehow a meaningful and deprecating distinction
You make yourself look stupid
Everything involving government and many things that do not is political
As to Johnson inviting Bibi
That can only hurt Biden or Harris if they deal with it stupidly
Which they did
I absolutely wish that we did not expect government to solve every problem in the world
But that is a false expectation created by the left
The best thing that could happen post Helene would be for government to stay away and let people rebuild on their own
Whether trump Harris or Biden their photo ops do little good
But that is not the world we live in
You created the expectation that leaders would show up at every disaster weep and show people that “we care”
You created the criteria
You can not now bemoan the fact that Trump is one upping your candidates
Yes theses are political stunts
But it is You that created their expectation
Conversely meeting with Bibi is much more that an election stunt
Did republicans set this up ?
Sure
But Biden should have arranged it
Further while the gop teed Bibi up
It is Biden and Harris that wiffed entirely on their own
No meeting Bibi does not weaken anything
The core issue is that neither Biden or Harris want to meet with Bibi
While it is a part of the job of president
Even the mention of Israel’s existence
Cause political damage to democrats
A problem of your own making
Trump is apparently gaining heavily Islamic voters in Michigan
How can that be ? He is as pro Israel as you can get.
It is because regardless of their position on Israel these voters are not as ignoignorant as the left
They know that the tens of thousands of mudd see Kim’s dying in this war are the fault of the bad politics of Harris and Biden that killed peace and caused war
These are people who are anti Israel
But they were happy with a peaceful status quo
And yes house republicans are happy to call attention to democrats mistakes
But democrats could actually learn from their mistakes
They could have preserved the containment of Iran and preserved the peace
Or they could have backed Israel
The shortest route to peace right now is the destruction of Hamas not cease fires that just delay the inevitable
You are clueless
Your party is clueless
They have failed at everything they have touched
And still not learned anything
I do not care what is beneficial to ” the administration ”
I care what is beneficial to the US
And to a lesser extent the world
Yes Biden/harris have other Chanel’s
As I noted there is no need for presidents or anyone in government to go to disaster areas
But You created that expectation and now bemoan the fact that Trump has beaten you at your own game
Btw trump has a life long reputation for personal charity that the left ignores
But then you think charity is a government function
Do Harris and Biden need to meet Bibi ?
No
But they need to support Israel destroying Hamas as rapidly as possible
That is when this ends
It started because Biden Harris emboldened Iran
This mess is the entirely predictable result
Far better than meeting Bibi would be not f$&cing up and having peace
Regardless democrats are terrified that clueless woke youngsters might not vote if they do what is necessary to end this
You want to pretend that the disaster of your making in the Mideast does not exist
Btw I am not a huge Bibi fan
He will like lose when this is over
But he and Biden/harris made this mess
They need to work together to clean it up
Americans want real peace
The best way there would have been to build on trump’s work in the Mideast
To contain Iran and to improve relations between Israel and Arab nations
That was feasible before Biden/harris empowered Iran to cause chaos
Now real peace must be established
Btw the US is not the hand that feeds Israel
A peaceful Mideast is in our national interests probably more than peace in Ukraine
Israel will crush its enemies
No matter what
With us help that will be faster and with fewer total deaths on both sides
I do not care if Bibi bites bidens hand off
Help
Don’t
But you own your choices
Biden Harris want magic the cure the problems and not have to stick their necks out
As I said before Bibi is toast as soon as this is over
In the meantime he is trying to clean up a mess that he is partially responsible for
Biden/harris could take a lesson from that
I do not need to believe anything
You went down this rabbit hole
What I expect is that people with integrity use the same standards for all
You clearly don’t
The merchan case is dead man walking
If you do not know that your an idiot
While merchan ignoring trump’s attorneys efforts to preclude merchan from using inadmissible evidence will kill the case
The core problem is that the nda was never your or braggs business
It is not a crime to call payments to your lawyer for almost anything in your private records a legal expense
That idiots like you
Bragg
Merchan
And way to many New Yorkers
Think you can force others to manage their private lives to suit you
Is revolting
But it is not a crime
Blacks defines a crime
Bending the law to criminalize legitimate conduct is immoral
And itself actually criminal
Bragg should indict Harris for false business records
She must have posted this somewhere.
I know this is hard for you left wing nuts
But everything you do not like is not a crime
And lawfare mangling of the law to accuse others of crimes actually is a crime
A crime is the use or threat of force or fraud to deprive another of their rights
Fraud is theft by deception
When you try to make acts that do not infringe on others rights into crimes
You are the criminal
I would suggest listening to oral arguments on the James case
While that is the enmoron stupidity
Some issues are the same
Such as there is no fraud with tangible harm
Given that criminal standards are higher if the merchant case does not die from judicial error first it will die from failure to state an actual crime
Enigma, Kamala skips out of her duties without a thought. Netanyahu represented a national security issue. Kamala chose the social party and politicking over national security. She did the same with our southern border. The only thing that appears good about Kamala that won’t last is that she conveniently reversed her opinions on what she said last week. She is an opportunist and a liar.
Enigma, Kamala also didn’t show up at the UN. She is proving that, in her eyes, the Jewish people don’t count. She is also proving that Christian people in the Middle East don’t count either. If we look at what Obama did and Kamala’s policies, she is proving black people don’t count.
Who does count in Kamala’s eyes? The elites and those who will sell America down the drain.
You recall your brother
I will bet others recall you
Where are the people who recall fry girl Kamala?
If she actually worked at a McDonald’s
Can not remember which one
Or any co workers
And no one remembers her
That is actually worse than lying
Regardless who really believes that arm candy Kamala who has been photographed on the arms of many celebrities in her 20s and 30s does not have a McDonald’s photo
She has always been a memorable person
Be Eric Weinstein has a poll on twitter where he asks
Regardless of your views on abortion
Does you position change from conception to birth
1/3 of people say no
2/3 do not have the same view at conception as they do immediately before birth
2/3 of necessity means that both parties have large numbers that fall into that 2/3
Absolute pro life is not a winning position for republicans
But the left equivalent is not a winning position for democrats
While moving this to the states was a small political error on the part of republicans
Democrats have nearly as big a problem as republicans on abortion
It is also an issue that has demographic divisions that do not align with politics
As an example the majority of Hispanics are devoutly catholic
Get out of your bubble
Your assumptions about the “left equivalent” are wrong. Democrats have fumbled with a position on abortion for decades but have finally settled on a position that they aren’t afraid to shout to the rafters and is winning at the ballot box as has been demonstrated in red and blue states. It’s Republicans that can’t talk about abortion without shooting themselves in the foot.
“Democrats have fumbled with a position on abortion for decades but have finally settled on a position that they aren’t afraid to shout to the rafters “
Democrats settled on a political and fleeting position. They do not care if it doesn’t integrate well with the rest of the legal system and societal norms. All they care about are presumed votes that lead to power. They are fascists. You are unable to pick up on these facts, and like the Democrats of today, your thinking process denies context while lacking the depth necessary to discuss the question intelligently.
Then you can point to multiple places where the democrats clear position on abortion is laid out.
Eb that claim is bs
There is no clear position from any except the catholic pro life movement
Even Protestant pro lifers do not have a clear consistent position
The only thing true of democrats is that they are generally more in favor of abortion than republicans
It is a difficult issue
Made much worse by the false idea shared by both sides that the relevant right is to an abortion rather than control of your body
Nothing says we are the pro death party than dems demanding abortion up to birth , and denying life to those that survive an abortion that tried to end them.
The farther Trump lags in the polling the more desperate the comments get on the Internet. Try saying true things if you want respect.
Roe was “overturned” by Casey
Which is a significantly different decision
While Casey is still wrong
It was actually better than Dobbs
The correct decision was there is no right to an abortion
There is a right to control of your own body
You can not be required to remain pregnant
But you can be required to remove the fetus without killing it – if that is possible
That is closer to Casey than dobbs and is constitutionally correct
St as yes can if they choose require the pregnancy to be removed with the best chance of survival
The left has no boundaries, there are no limits to what they will do to win every battle and every war. They move the Overton Window leftward on every issue and in every institution reaching now into the Supreme Court. The right needs to pick up their game, get more involved and less worried about appearances and just care about winning.
Now who could be leaking amongst the SCJ”s. Which political party would leaking material benefit, how hard can it be to actually expose them. Whomever could it be?
Justices have been placed in their positions for one purpose only and that is to uphold the constitution of the United States and its rules and regulations of the Supreme Court. If one person is violating the Supreme Court regulations, they need to be impeached immediately. The laws are very clear on this, and Roberts needs to strap on a pair and take the bowl by the horns and the boys that he was appointed to be. It doesn’t matter who the judges that is leaking information, if it is a judge, in fact, what matters is that the Constitution, the rules and regulations of the court is being violated and should not be tolerated, regardless of who it is
Chief Justice Roberts should have exposed and cracked down on the first leak. They know who did it. Now we see more leaks, the same source. Roberts needs to now crack down. If its a clerk fire and punish them. You cannot reason with these hard-core Leftist.
Not to condone the leaks or their likely inside-the-court origin, one canot help but feel that the SCOTUS is partly to blame for their current situation, punting as they did on any reasonable questions of the vaildity of the 2020 Presidential election. Marauders unchecked are marauders emboldened.
While I somewhat agree
SCOTUS has two choices
Clean up the unconstitutional conduct occurring everywhere now
Or be forced to as it gets even more egregious
During the 1992 presidential campaign, Al Gore organized a rally before the employees of the Pentagon. In his remarks, he noted that government workers needed to be more “customer friendly” in their day-to-day interactions with the public. This was in keeping with Gore’s “reinventing” government initiative.
As the story is told, a lowly GS-5 Pentagon worker during a Q&A session that followed Gore’s presentation asked Gore, rhetorically, “who” he believed were the so-called customers since the people in the U.S. consider themselves – as the Constitution considers them – the “owners” of this country and its government. Gore word saladed his way to another subject.
Here we have a situation in which the highest court is unable to judge its own behavior, yet it has that power over the rest of us. As owners of this government, we the people need to change this in a way that preserves the independence of the Court, reduce its political footprint, and restore the honor and reverence of living according to the rule of law.
The Dobbs leak greatly weakened the Court and left it open to harsh and largely justified criticism as it began to take on the political veneer of the other two branches. Roberts did nothing to address this, giving the court the image that, indeed, some of our employees are above the law. Turley shows the usual sycophancy for the Chief Justice expected of an attorney and law professor, but it’s the message he sends between the lines that has a durable and important meaning for we, the owners of this government.
“we the people need to change this in a way that preserves the independence of the Court, reduce its political footprint, and restore the honor and reverence of living according to the rule of law. ”
I’m uncertain what this would require, as I am not privy to all of the protocols of the Court, but it seems to me that one basic change could have immediate beneficial effect: the demotion of Roberts to Associate Justice and promotion of either Thomas (my first choice) or Alito to Chief. If that could be accomplished, it would appear to sidestep the need for an impeachment process that would be difficult, controversial, and undoubtedly dredge up a great deal more of the Court’s dirty laundry (both real, and imagined). The result of that would almost certainly not be to bolster the legitimacy of the Court in the eye of the general public. As I wrote that, the conspiracy theorist who shares my brain wondered if that wasn’t the actual objective of the exercise. The wokistas have certainly not been reticent about their desire to neuter the Court; could this be their strategy? If so, could that mean that Roberts is a co-conspirator in that effort, by undisclosed sympathy, or through blackmail? Or maybe the forces behind the effort understand that he is a shallow stunad, and are merely taking advantage of that?
I should have amplified on what I was suggesting could be the result of the hypothetical role-swapping. I think that either Thomas or Alito would pursue the leak investigation to a proper conclusion, while the chaos of a Justice impeachment was avoided for Robert, who would probably be at least an adequate Associate (assuming he would accept the demotion gracefully – he could announce that it is for health reasons, or some other harmless BS). I also think it likely that whoever is actually responsible for the leaks could be persuaded to resign, thus avoiding the almost certainly ugly impeachment process.
Robert’s should spend some time with musk
He is very good at catching leakers
This is not something taught at Harvard law school
Either how to leak without getting caught or how to catch leakers
Roberts may need help from people with these skills
But this is easily doable
Nor does roberts have to make results public
He can shame and limit the offending justice internally
But he must do something
He can not ever allow lower court judges any power over justices
It’s a creative and interesting suggestion but I don’t think the Court would accept it and nothing in the Constitution would or could require it. Roberts was nominated by President G.W. Bush in 2005 and the Constitution provides lifetime tenure with removal only for cause via impeachment. Allowing a sitting president to change this would exacerbate, not resolve, the problem.
“nothing in the Constitution would or could require it”
The Constitution is completely silent on any process to select or remove the status of “Chief” (or, for that matter, that of “Associate”) from a Justice, and nearly silent on the the very existence of a distinct office bearing that title. The only place it is mentioned at all is in the description of the impeachment of a President. One might easily conclude that the original intent was to name a temporary Chief only for the duration of such a proceeding.
Should have been “confer or remove”
You seem to be under the impression that the office is “Justice”, and “Chief” is merely a role that one justice takes on. That is not the case. Chief Justice is a separate office, which requires a separate nomination and confirmation.
That’s why when Roberts had already been nominated as a justice, and the chief justice’s seat became vacant, the president had to withdraw his original nomination and renominate him for the new position instead. Had he chosen instead to nominate one of the existing justices for the chief’s seat, that nomination would have had to be confirmed, and then that would have created a vacancy to which someone would have to be nominated and confirmed.
Therefore once Roberts was appointed he has lifetime tenure in it, and the only way he could move to plain justice would be for him to resign and then wait for a vacancy and be nominated and confirmed for it.
The “leaker” should be investigated and a true honest investigation will point the correct finger. Then the person needs to be impeached. Destroying the SC from within is treason against our Constitution.
I agree, JG. This is undoubtedly a leftist jurist, because the crime fits the profile. They didn’t build that, but they always feel entitled to destroy it.
The challenge is that the leaker would be an expert in the law and highly knowledgeable in forensics. Also, the unholy triumvirate (Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson) will run interference for each other, no matter the offense. Not an easy crime to solve.
The best chance of catching them is for someone at the NYT to turn state’s evidence, much like the assumed whistleblower at ABC (if such a person exists). Absent such a revelation, I doubt we’ll ever know who did it.
“the leaker would be an expert in the law and highly knowledgeable in forensics”
Law? At least in theory (subject to debate wrt EK and KBJ imo). Technical forensics? I’m skeptical of that proposition. Can that be substantiated? Do any of the Justices have a investigative background in a prosecutor’s office, for example?
They’re all Supreme Court Justices. I never underestimate the enemy.
Underestimation and accurate assessment are different. Underestimating an enemy creates needless risk. Overestimating same causes waste of resources. I see nothing in the background of either justice that would have likely involved developing any serious expertise in forensics. Also, both graduated Harvard Law School, which lends its prestigious reputation to graduates, but is that entirely justified? I was surprised to learn that HLS evidently routinely issues high grades, with the suggestion that the practice isn’t contingent on those grades being earned, and also does not publish rankings of students within their classes. Looks suspiciously like a case of taking the rich, gullible parents’ megabucks and running…
Finding leakers in these instances or atleast shutting down leaks is not that hard
All you need to do is provide different information to each justice
What is the leaked will identify the leaker
“Triumvirate”?! Perhaps Triumfeminate?
Democrats HAVE zero ethics. MY guess is Kagan, who was a Democrat Activist first and NEVER a Judge before! Judge a Democrats university flunky.
This is why it is TIME to end Federal Aid to colleges, cities, states and non-profits!
There is TOO MUCH centralized power!
Let democrats fund their own failure….instead of training fascists…WITH our Money!
If and when the person responsible for the leak(s) is found, they should be treated in the same manner that their leaks have treated the court, by leaking their name and the circumstances of their leak to the press.
“they should be treated in the same manner that their leaks have treated the court, by leaking their name and the circumstances of their leak to the press.”
I have mixed thoughts on that. One thing that should be avoided at all costs is any prospect that the identified leaker could be touted as a national hero. If there is some unambiguous, uncontroversial dirt on the leaker (beyond just the leak) that can be released simultaneously, go for it, otherwise it might be best to get rid of that person quietly.
I think Roberts can deal with this
Find the leaker
And then use his power to isolate them within the court
Have them offer the first comments on a case in sessions and the have them leave while other justices deliberate
“I think Roberts can deal with this… Find the leaker”
Of course, that presumes that the leaker is not Roberts himself. Unlikely imo, but not out of the question, either.
Highly unlikely
Roberts has no reason to undermine himself
There are two possibilities
A conservative who would have preferred a stronger 5-4 decision on some issue
Or a liberal who would have preferred a strong dissent to a 5-4 decision
My bet is on the later
The Texas law professor is named Josh Blackman, not Blackmun. Yet, I can see how that typo could’ve happened since the deciding opinion of Roe v. Wade was penned by Harold Blackmun. 🙂
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court does not manage crises, and the Supreme Court does not operate independently. The Chief Justice presides over the proceedings of the Supreme Court, they do not participate in those proceedings and they do not participate in the decisions rendered by the Court.
The Supreme Court has a very specific purpose and a very specific assembly and operation. There is a reason why the Supreme Court is not a coequal branch of government! The court is an ancillary, and subordinate, department to the legislative department, just like the executive departments which are established by, and directed by, the united States, in congress assembled, the Union, and in specific, the Senate which is a continuation of the Committee of the States as established by Article 9 of the Articles of Confederation.
If you review Article 9 Clause 2 of the Articles of Confederation you will find the process to assemble and operate the Supreme Court to adjudicate the conflicts, disputes, and grievances which occur between the States. Each State “must” have one of their own citizens in a primary pool of justices that could be chosen to hear and decide the matters which arrive as petitions for redress made in Congress. The Chief Justice is not one of the pool, and presiding means that they ensure that the proceedings are conducted properly, in an orderly manner, to reach the majority consensus of the 5 justices chosen by lot to hear and decide the matter before the court, and the States have agreed to abide by the decisions of the court to resolve their conflicts, disputes, and grievances.
What we must also recognize is that the Constitution of the United States, and the Articles of Confederation, are participation versus compliance agreements between the States, meaning only the States must comply with all laws and decisions made by the States as the Union in Congress, and only the States have agreed to abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court to resolve their conflicts, disputes, and grievances. Which is why ALL THE STATES must participate in assembling the Supreme Court and agree to the Court proceedings to reach a decision to resolve those matters of conflict, dispute and grievance.
You can’t make valid laws in an improperly assembled and operated legislative institution, and you cannot adjudicate grievances resulting from valid laws in an improperly assembled and operated Supreme Court!
The Chief Justice does indeed participate in the opinions delivered by the court. That was an erroneous statement. Many times a chief justice will join himself to one side or the other just to be able to write the opinion himself. On another note…John Roberts has been considered a turncoat by conservatives. It was Roberts who allowed Obamacare to move forward by a mental gymnastical approach to his decision. It completely changed the case from what was presented by the crooked Obama administration. In a side note…Kagan prepared the Obama admin argument that was eventually used at the SC level…after she had become a justice…and she refused to recuse herself.
The Constitution imo can rightly be seen as a legacy of the Articles, however, afaik there is nothing in the former document that gives any authority to the text or provisions of the latter.
npfNone, this is all utter nonsense. The constitution is not a successor to the Articles. It is a completely new thing, and that it why it was adopted by the PEOPLE of the states, over the heads and objections of their legislatures. It was imposed on the state legislatures by force, because power belongs to the states’ PEOPLE.
And it is certainly binding, not only on the states but also on their people, as clearly stated in the constitution itself. For instance look at the list of topics on which Congress can legislate; those are laws binding individuals, not just states, and the constitution says those laws shall be the supreme law of the land.
The best evidence is that this is how the first congress and the first court operated.
It is important to remember that for the far left, everything, yes every single thing, in life is political. Therefore, the cultural issues at the Supreme Court are not much different than in previous decades, except for the LEAKS. The leaks are meant to destabilize and weaken the court. These days, it is Roberts under the glass. The Gorsuch issue has worn out. It might be wise for Roberts to let it ride until the leaks become boring.
You comment is total nonsense! There is no way to influence a properly assembled Supreme Court, and there is absolutely no secret information to leak regarding any aspect of the decision or the matter of the decision. If the matter under consideration involves secret or sensitive information, then the proceedings of the court will be held in secret and only the States as the Union assembled as the Senate may determine what, if any, of those proceedings may be published publicly, as the proceedings of the Supreme Court are an extension of the proceedings of the Senate. The Supreme Court has an ancillary function, not an independent function.
Again, this is utter nonsense. The judicial branch is independent of the legislative and executive branches. The constitution itself makes that clear, as do the debates in Philadelphia and at the ratifying conventions, and the federalist papers. So does the practice of the first congress, supreme court, and president.
The states have no direct role in the union at all. It is a union of the PEOPLE of the states, not of the states as represented by their legislatures.
For instance, until 1913 senators were elected by their state legislatures, but once elected they were independent for their six-year terms, and the legislature that elected them could not recall them, any more than the people of a district can recall their representative during his two-year term, or than the electoral college can reassemble and recall a president. If a senator did not intend to seek reelection he was free to ignore the wishes of his state’s legislature and do as he thought fit, exactly as is the case now.
Which is worse, war crimes or the leaking of classified information disclosing the crimes?
For the guy who oversees the highest court in the land, Roberts is surprisingly clueless. Anyone with a brain knew that when the first leak was met with a cover up and no consequence, that other leaks would follow. This is what comes from trying to appear “balanced” rather than following the law and pursuing actual justice.
The same could be said about ethical violations which clearly haven’t been curtailed.
That would be made up ethical violations
There is absolutely zero difference in the overall conduct of conservative justice
Except that thomas by only having a consequential relationship with a single party has less conflicts than justices on the left
Regardless those of you on the left do not apply the same standards to your own
To you speaking to the federalist society is a conflict
But to the aclu is laudable
You are not sufficiently moral to comment on the ethics of others
No the same could not be said
While I did not find the revaluations surprising
The chief justice should always be working to get the court to speak with one clear voice
Though I Personally would prefer the court spoke with bright lines and a 5-4 decision
Than unanimously with an ambiguous decision
In a perfect world we would get both
Unanimity and clarity
But that is difficult with those on the left who forget they are there to follow the constitution and the law not their personal views
Justices are not the drafters of the constitution or its amendments
They are not the drafters of the law
They are there to read it
Follow the rules of statutory construction
And constrain the government to only what the constitution and law allow
Their personal views should not matter
I would note this always means that the court ruling properly will be conservative
When it is not it has erred
In point of fact the judiciary as a whole is by design supposed to be conservative
The constitution can be changed
The law can be changed
But when the courts
Especially scotus behaves as if they write the laws and constitution
That can not be fixed
That is the mess Brazil has now
A country run by the courts
Very good comment. Just to clarify for those who do not get it, or will not allow themselves to do so
“And constrain the government to only what the constitution and law allow”
represents a set intersection, not a union…
Do you think he lives in our world?