Posted on 06/28/2022 5:42:20 AM PDT by 70times7
Respectfully, I don’t see a chance in heck that the Court would cover up out of concern for a law clerk’s future. A leak like that is an irreparable violation of trust and makes the person inherently untrustworthy for all future employment. No degree of friendliness could justify that.
Now, it could have been a clerk and they are covering it up for some other reason, but I just don’t see them doing it to save a clerk’s behind.
Well, W went with Miers first, then Alito, so...
“Now, it could have been a clerk and they are covering it up for some other reason, but I just don’t see them doing it to save a clerk’s behind.”
I realize that and on second thought the probability that 100% of DemocRATS, Republicucks, and the media have suddenly grown a sense of decency is infinitely small. Therefore we are left with the cause being DOJ incompetence OR they know and won’t tell anyone because it hurts the Left.
Very unlikely it was Roberts, exponentially more likely it was someone other than Roberts.
1.) Roberts has shown on multiple occasions that he can be influenced by the political implications of court rulings. He’s a baby splitter. Even in his opinion in Dobbs he tried to give a little to the pro abortion side as he gave a little to Mississippi. His opinion for the ACA mostly read like a dissent, strongly suggesting a switch in his vote. This is more a setup to the next point, but on its own, he would be unlikely to leak because the leak significantly impacted the reputation of the court that he so jealously guards.
2.) If he were the leaker, by handing over (or through an intermediary) the documents to a left leaning reporter, he would be guaranteeing that the reporter would have big leverage over him, for the rest of his career. It would gain him nothing, and now he would be subject to blackmail and impeachment for the rest of his days. With a dem majority in the senate and house, Roberts would most certainly be impeached if he were revealed as the leaker, and the GOP just may be dumb enough to go along with it to see to his removal and the remaking of the court.
3.) Two other clerks for leftist justices have already been shown to be outspoken abortion zealots, and have connections, either through mutual friends, prior work, or as sources for the lefty reporter. There was also a recently appointed Justice in waiting who has a current clerk staff and would possibly be getting some courtesy copies of predecisional drafts in her possession. Her staff may or may not be coming along with her to the USSC, and may also not be as guarded about the sanctity of the Court.
3b.) Further to the other point, A right-leaning chief justice using a leftist reporter who hangs in the same circles as recent law school grads as a pass through for a leak is like a college graduate buying cigarettes for teenagers because he is looking for social acceptance.
4.) Finally, leak investigations frequently find the leaker. Probably it’s almost always. The reason you rarely hear about the identities is that the investigations are not for you, they are for the government. Watch where the clerks end up next year for big clues, there are relatively predictable career paths for USSC clerks, and if someone suddenly has a strange deviation, that’s probably your guy (or gal... I’m not a biologist).
Well, one thing is for sure - John Kerry would not and could not have been pressured into appointing Alito, nor would Dukakis have ever considered appointing Thomas. The difference in having those two on the Court has been monumental vs. the alternative.
Has anyone done an analysis of the differences (if any) between the ‘draft’ and the final opinion?
Roberts did not vote to overturn.
He voted that the 15-week Mississippi law was constitutional (that it did not violate Roe or Casey). In his concurrence he said it was not necessary to rule on Roe or Casey to uphold the Mississippi law.
Thanks jz. Those points make a lot of sense.
I figured some one probably had, and I’m extremely pleased you did.
Everyone - I appreciate (nearly) all of your replies. The rationales for why it was unlikely to have been Roberts, in particular, certainly have me thinking. So do many of the other posts. These are the exchanges I particularly like here on FR. Thank you
As for those continuing to insist Roberts voted with the minority to uphold Roe, please see my post #28. Repeatedly posting “6-3, 5-4 !” is reminiscent of the classic “did not ... did too!” from when I was five. Nostalgic as it may be, those replies don’t answer the questions I posted nor do they modify my understanding of how the SCOTUS addresses cases.
It was just the one case, and the majority ruling made an expansive statement as part of that, that overturned Roe/Casey.
Roberts concurred on the main vote, but said he would not have gone as far as overturning anything.
if you look at Roberts voting record you will see that as his mo.
It is kinda amusing they have not announced the results of their “investigation”.
My guess—it was a clerk who is a member of American royalty aka BIPOC or pervert.
Thanks Svartalfiar. That is what I thought happened.
I’m guessing it is also why none of those who made the claim replied with any explanation.
Sure thing. And it’s not anything new, you’ll find all sorts of cases where there’s more than two opinions - sometimes Justices will find the majority opinion/dissent to have the same outcome as their vote, but they’ll use a different legal method to get there. Hence lots of separate concurring opinions, opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part, and so on.
The democrats would never think about appointing a “moderate” to be fair. Only the GOP establishment does that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.