Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Leak from the Supreme Court: Why Are We Surprised?
Is anyone really surprised about the violation of confidentiality and secrecy that has emerged from the Supreme Court? Certainly, the Supreme Court might have been seen as the last bastion of virtue in our government, where no one would have expected this kind of devastating assault on the most respected division of our federal government. But I would like to suggest that only the most naïve would believe that SCOTUS was immune to this type of attack, given the prevalence of criminal leaks, particularly over the last six years.
A person only needs to look at the record of leaks against the Trump administration during only the first two years:
The number of leaks of classified information reported as potential crimes by federal agencies reached record high levels during the first two years of the Trump Administration, according to data released by the Justice Department last week.
Agencies transmitted 120 leak referrals to the Justice Department in 2017, and 88 leak referrals in 2018, for an average of 104 per year. By comparison, the average number of leak referrals during the Obama Administration (2009–2016) was 39 per year.
In spite of Trump’s first AG, Jeff Sessions’ assurance that the DOJ would investigate and they would make sure the leaks didn’t continue, they did.
The facts tell us that few criminal investigations are opened, and those that are completed provide insufficient information to prosecute. And those that were investigated were clearly retaliation against the Trump administration:
Two examples include the leaking of transcripts of Trump’s phone calls with foreign leaders to the Washington Post, and the disclosures about irregularities in the way the White House processed senior presidential adviser Jared Kushner’s security clearance to NBC News. It’s not clear whether either case was referred to the Justice Department by a federal agency, although U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., then chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he filed his own referral on the transcripts.
The transcripts highlighted what many believed was bizarre and unsettling behavior on Trump’s part, and the security clearance disclosures showed that career officials had been overruled, something that rarely happens.
Since the odds of getting into hot water are minimal, the Left is willing to risk being identified, given that they perceive the stakes to stop the forces of the enemy are daunting. And, of course, integrity, truth, and tradition play no role in their decisions.
But, you say, the Supreme Court has a whole different history. Indeed, it does. And the Left repeatedly criticizes SCOTUS for decisions that don’t support its agenda. It feels threatened by the number of Conservative justices, even though they are not in lockstep for every decision. The Left fears that these justices will delegitimize its goals, and that they pose a danger to our democracy. So, whoever provided the leaked information probably sees himself or herself as a savior to the country, stopping SCOTUS in its tracks.
It is a tragic commentary on the state of our government, our citizenry, and the nation.
Published in Domestic Policy
The leak is certainly tragic, but I agree that it shouldn’t be surprising. Why would people defending abortion be worried about a little thing like virtue?
I’m certainly shocked. This is unprecedented and a huge breach of the trust and confidence that is necessary for the Court to function. Pure self-interest should be enough to prevent this, let alone basic decency.
If a justice leaked this, then they have torched any trust and credibility with their colleagues. This is insane given that many of the Justices will serve for decades together. If a clerk leaked it, then they have flushed their legal career. Being able to keep things in confidence and secret is fundamental to the practice of law and an attorney who cannot be trusted to do that will not be hired.
This is very bad and no matter what the final opinion holds, the damage to the Court’s reputation will be huge. The problem is that the final opinion will likely be significantly different in tone and possibly in scope. That’s a normal part of the process. But now any changes at all will be seen as caving to pressure. The best thing is to get the opinions finalized asap and get them out to minimize that effect.
My husband and I were discussing this option, and it’s a n0-win situation: if they wait until June, all hell will likely break loose; but if they get out the decision quickly, they will be seen as caving to the rabble. And I agree with your overall assessment. I, too, was shocked, but once I had that initial reaction, I could only shake my head in sadness. Thanks, MDHahn.
I am never surprised by perfidy in government.
The Federal Government is a Democrat project. It responds to a Democrat agenda. It’s laws are for a Democrat purpose. To be enforced, ignored or interpreted as the Democrats please. The surprise is when it does not cheat to help the Democrats. I no longer expect, legal, justice, fairness or anything from my government. It is a corrupt organization that operates for its own corrupt purposes. There was no way they were not going to leak this once it looked like the ruling was going to go against them. Now they will bully and cheat to get their way.
One thing I don’t get, though … wasn’t it going to serve the Democrats a lot better if this decision came out when it was originally supposed to, closer to the midterms? It seemed like a perfect opportunity to pump up voter turnout in state (OMG, make sure you elect people who will make pro-abortion laws!) and federal (OMG, defeat evil conservatives!) races. Doesn’t it coming out this much earlier, and the outrage and protests and wailing erupting at this point, steal some of that thunder? And if this somehow works to change the final Court decision, doesn’t that fire up the conservative electorate and make the libs more complacent?
Not that any of that would matter to a leftie with access to leakable material and a true zeal to abort babies, but … maybe not exactly the smartest move politically?
Your problem, dear Terri, is that your thinking is rational and strategic. I think you know thatLeftists don’t think that way; they react to the moment with outrage and little thought. They may also believe they will maintain this level of protest until the elections. Would they be able to do that? Who knows?
No.
It is a tragic commentary on the Left. This is not the fault of any of us. This is
Depends if they want to win the election or change the vote. Or both. In this case I suspect they want to change the vote. They can intimidate the court to change the ruling. Stack the court. Replace a judge. etc.
With @mdhahn I am shocked. A leak like this has never happened at the Court before and this leak is likely to damage working functions at the Court for years to come, which is bad [almost] no matter what your judicial philosophy.
For what purpose?
The leading purpose I hear is to foment a public pressure campaign to get one or more justices who was prepared to sign on to the draft opinion to change his or her mind, so that the draft opinion becomes a minority opinion (dissent). But how likely is that? If upon publication of the final Court decision the draft opinion has become a minority opinion, the public will quickly identify the justice(s) that likely switched votes, and that justice(s) will become known derisively as the justice who can be swayed by public intimidation. If Chief Justice Roberts is truly concerned about institutional reputation, that will do more to destroy the Court’s institutional reputation than just about anything else I can think of.
We’ll have to disagree, Bryan. Too many of us complained and did very little to oversee what was really happening in this country. We selected poor representatives, over and over again, who were more focused on re-election than the state of the nation. We were not engaged with our schools. We silently watched our country descend into a morass of decadence and immorality. I’m willing to put much of the blame on the Left, but we can’t say we didn’t contribute, IMHO.
I refused to accept responsibility for the sins of others. We do have to disagree.
I agree Full Sized Tabby, the leak makes it very difficult for the justices who supported the draft to change their minds. Isn’t it interesting that the left does not seem to want to address the merits of the draft opinion, and even advance an argument as to why abortion is a constitutional right?
They rarely do. It’s so much easier to be obstructionist and practice name-calling.
This was leaked by a leftist Justice or her clerk, to embarrass one of the originalists into changing his or her vote. The left has no honor, no scruples, they just crave power.
One wonders if Breyer, who has nothing to lose, might have done this. However, I think it was Sotomayor, because of her stupidity and arrogance.
The Court should release their final ruling tomorrow, if not tonight, to avoid being cowed. And if the leaker was one of the Justices, he or she should resign or failing that, be impeached. If the lowlife who leaked this is a clerk, he or she should be fired summarily; even so, he or she will have choice of a faculty position at any Ivy League law school.
It’s also a nice distraction to keep everyone from watching and discussing the 2000 Mules documentary detailing with video evidence that Trump won the 2020 election.
https://thecharliekirkshow.com/podcasts/the-charlie-kirk-show/everything-you-need-to-know-about-2000-mules-with
Squirrel!
I have no reason to justify my opinion, but I think it could very well have come from one of Sotomayor’s clerks. I have a very hard time believing any Justice would have leaked.
Ought to have a prison cell.
Wonder what the over / under is on SCOTUS members lives this year?
Found one. Seems to be out of date
http://scotusdeathwatch.com/
Wonder where a more current one is.
Wonder where the betting is.
Forgive my opacity, Susan. I meant Sotomayor’s office, more likely one of her assistants or clerks than the Justice herself. But maybe the Wise Latina knew…
I doubt she would have done it herself. Directing it to be done (plausible deniability) is another matter. It is the Democrat way.
Leaks are definitely a double-edged sword. On the one hand, leaking is bad because there are some secrets that need to be kept (like a private conversation with a foreign leader, you dirtbag Vindman). On the other hand, leaking makes it nearly impossible for the government to carry out any nefarious activity.
It’s quite clear the leaking against Trump was to damage the man . . .
They want pump up the outrage AND to influence the decision.
How is the Supreme Court a bastion of anything?
For the last thirty years, at least, in order to be nominated to serve as even a local judge, the candidate must be proven most reliable to corporate interests, including Big Banking, Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Military/Surveillance and Big Media.
So expecting that no one among these nine people with such callous allegiances would not risk a leak that will benefit the pro-abortion/Dem party interests is somewhat naive. (Don’t forget – this SCOTUS refused to hear lawsuits regarding nefarious 2020 election activities in PA and TX. In some cases, the claim was made the lawsuit was filed too early, as indications were needed. Then a few weeks later, when the necessary indications were on hand, the claimant was told the claim was denied a hearing as they were filing too late.)
So as far as those on the Supreme Court, they are proven members of an inner club that very few of us belong to.
Both Kagen and Sottomayor were sworn allies of Monsanto. Of course Obama got around any objections that The Left and the ecology movement would have posed to his selection by his repeatedly emphasizing their gender and their ethnicity.
None of Trump’s SCOTUS appointments seem to be “Supreme” material. (Although all three will most likely be willing to obliterate Roe vs Wade.)
Should this overturn occur, there will then be a state by state decision which most likely means 20 states will ban abortion, and thirty will insist on its legality inside their state’s borders.
It’s pretty ironic that the “living constitution” proponents are freaked out. Bad idea to leak this draft. Whoever did this should be frogmarched. It is not going to help the country deal with the several issues that divide us. It was a power play. That tells me that we are in trouble.
Just out of curiosity, what makes you have a hard time believing that? :)
Why does the Federalist podcast on this topic have Comments turned off?
https://ricochet.com/podcast/federalist-radio-hour/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-bombshell-scotus-leak/
I am guessing someone is thinking this is going to be very contentious?
Let’s see if the investigation into the leaker is “real.” That will tell us something. The only way to make this a one- off is for the perp to be found, fired, and disbarred (if a bar member).