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
I have long complained about Trump ignoring the guardrails.
But, this one is on the left. Whoever did this is just as bad as Trump. I believe that it was a Law Clerk. I hope that that Clerk is caught, fired, and that this behavior prevents him or her from ever practicing law.
An unprecedented, and arguably tragic, event in Supreme Court history is simply the best time to bring up Trump.
No, it is to point out that I will criticize the Left, just as I have criticized Trump.
Expect to hear the Marshal of the Supreme Court to announce “it’s a mystery” six weeks from now on a Friday.
She’s going to have to work with the other Justices for a long time, and in spite of their differences, there’s the collegiality factor. I think it was one of the clerks.
That would be the fear. It will be a good test of who means business and who doesn’t. I’m pinning my hopes on Cruz, but am unsure where congressional authority fits in here.
And here I thought she was a wise Latina.
Excuse me, Latinx.
FWIW, the Marshall is a West Point grad from back before serious PC.
I think you’re overlooking the rationale this gives the Democrat-controlled Congress to rescind the filibuster, pass national abortion rights legislation, and pack the Court. Especially because their majority is under threat in November and the Court is threatening their all-precious sacrament of abortion (although not really — Blue states will have all the abortion they can handle).
Oh, puh-leaze. You voted for the Left. No, worse than that. You worked to get JFB (not a typo) elected. While donating thousands of dollars to the cause. You know, the guy who nominated the “first black woman” who can’t say what a “woman” is to sit on the SCOTUS.
Are these the actions of a friend to this Republic or to the Republican party? What does it sound like to you?
Thank you for being so gracious.
You will see that most of my contributions this cycle has been to Republicans like Mike Doyle in Ohio, Brian Kemp in Georgia and the members of Congress who voted to impeach or convict Trump in the second impeachment. I have also contributed to Republicans in the Arizona Legislature who held the line on Trump and the so-called audit. Yes, Republicans all, with a few exceptions such as Independent Evan McMullin who is seeking to knock off Mike Lee in Utah.
You’re welcome. If you don’t want criticism, maybe you should refrain from bringing your Trump hatred into threads having almost nothing to do with him. The only thing pertinent about Trump wrt to this thread is his stellar (constitutionalist) appointments to the Court and the fact that he suffered more and more (fake news) leaks meant to damage him as president than anyone else in history.
If the perp is found to be a Republican, he/she should not be allowed to work again. If a Democrat, he/she should be awarded a job at CNN.
I’m a part of this for pointing out the unnecessary Trump comment initially, but you are spot on. Hopefully Susan, whose threads have been subjected to these types of hijacks in the past, will understand.
Couldn’t it have been any of the clerks? I mean why one of Sotomayor’s?
As I said, I have no particular rationale, Zafar.
With all due respect, I think that you both have GRDS, ot Gary Robbins Derangement Syndrome, where any perceived attack on Trump must be answered with a personal attack on me. Let’s agree that the leak of the Supreme Court is as terrible as the alleged transgressions of Trump, without driving headlong into a defense of Trump. Fair enough?
Perhaps so Zafar and HeavyWater can take a break.
I feel stupid for being shocked. Actually, I feel stupid for having been continually shocked over the past few years.
Very humble observation.
You now have a disorder named after you.
Preferably in close association with Chris Wallace. I understand he’s a real ray of sunshine over there these days.
With Reo v Wade in place, there has been no price for pro-choice Republicans who vote for anti-abortion candidates (who pass anti-abortion laws which then can’t be implemented because of Roe v Wade). That’s made the conflict between pro-choice Republicans and the Evangelical base on this issue completely theoretical, and made it easier to mai[n]tain that coalition of voters.
If Roe v Wade is indeed overturned, that’ll no longer be the case – people will need to cop the results of their vote. How that impacts the votes of the 59% of republicans who are pro-choice will be interesting. And also, I guess, the statements and behaviour of the Republican politicians who have been able to cater to the Evangelical portion of their base without de facto impacting that 59%. It’ll be interesting how that plays out in the lead up to the mid-terms.
No. There is one person here who brought up Trump. One. It’s only because of your penchant for hijacking threads that I choose to try to avoid this one.
You’ve hijacked another thread to give vent to your tiresome obsession. What do you expect?
Is the perp is identified that person will be hailed as a hero and wind up with a gig on MSNBC.
Heard today ‘ The left is gearing up to go ‘mostly peaceful’ again’
And a few tenured honorary college professorships so they can roll in some bank. Then a book deal, movie rights, speaking tours, all the best parties…….
I just read an article in American Thinker that indicates that any junior law clerk would not have jeopardized his whole future over a leak, and I figure the same could likely hold true for senior law clerks. The guess in the article was that Breyer himself leaked it; a justice that is (asked to be) stepping down for political reasons (to allow Biden to appoint his replacement) might easily want to leak a draft for political purposes. And he is the only one who has nothing to lose.
Sarah Isgur in “Advisory Opinions” at The Dispatch had an excellent idea. If the leaker cannot be found, then the entire Clerk Class at the Supreme Court should be dismissed.
The Honor Code at West Point is “A Cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.” Every 20 or so years, it seems like West Point has a huge ethics scandal, not based upon Cadets who have lied, cheated or stolen, but who tolerated someone who did. A large percentage of a class is dismissed.
For the health of the Court and to stop future leaks, it would be best to dismiss the entire class of Clerks. Their term ends in a couple of months anyhow. A harsh, but needed correction. (The Justices could recall some of their past Clerks to help them wrap up this term.)
It might have been one of the Supremes. Get rid of everybody and start fresh?