Couldn’t Find the SCOTUS Leaker

 

Big surprise here: the Supreme Court investigation couldn’t find the leaker of the Dobbs opinion. They made 82 employees (but no justices) sign affidavits under threat of perjury that they hadn’t disclosed the opinion. Since they didn’t put the screws on the justices, that means that the leaker has to be a justice. I imagine the leaker-justice got a stern warning from Roberts. Will it be enough to deter future leaks?

Who else thinks the leaker’s name rhymes with Monia Motomayor?

Published in Law
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 42 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Still could have been an employee, who lied despite the affidavits.

    Just because they sign affidavits doesn’t make it impossible for them to lie.

    It means if they’re later found to have lied, they can be prosecuted, but how likely is that to happen?

    • #1
  2. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Still could have been an employee, who lied despite the affidavits.

    Just because they sign affidavits doesn’t make it impossible for them to lie.

    It means if they’re later found to have lied, they can be prosecuted, but how likely is that to happen?

    I thought Dumbledore supplied the government with affidavits that prevent liars from signing.

    • #2
  3. Steve Fast Coolidge
    Steve Fast
    @SteveFast

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Still could have been an employee, who lied despite the affidavits.

    Just because they sign affidavits doesn’t make it impossible for them to lie.

    It means if they’re later found to have lied, they can be prosecuted, but how likely is that to happen?

    It could have been an employee who lied, but that they didn’t investigate the justices seems to be a major gap in the investigation. I think they knew exactly who did it, but for reasons of workplace comity, Roberts decided not to out Motomayor publicly. He had a big investigation as a warning to everyone that this would not be tolerated in the future. If he didn’t make a big deal of it, leaking of opinions might become common.

    • #3
  4. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Steve Fast (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Still could have been an employee, who lied despite the affidavits.

    Just because they sign affidavits doesn’t make it impossible for them to lie.

    It means if they’re later found to have lied, they can be prosecuted, but how likely is that to happen?

    It could have been an employee who lied, but that they didn’t investigate the justices seems to be a major gap in the investigation. I think they knew exactly who did it, but for reasons of workplace comity, Roberts decided not to out Sotomayor publicly. He had a big investigation as a warning to everyone that this would not be tolerated in the future. If he didn’t make a big deal of it, leaking of opinions might become common.

    Unless this means that the NEXT TIME Monia Motomayor leaks an opinion there will be hell to pay, which seems unlikely, what difference does it really make?

    If the next leaks just means they round up 82 employees for affidavits again, that won’t stop anyone.

    • #4
  5. DonG (CAGW is a Scam) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Scam)
    @DonG

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Unless this means that the NEXT TIME Monia Motomayor leaks an opinion there will be hell to pay, which seems unlikely, what difference does it really make?

    If the next leaks just means they round up 82 employees for affidavits again, that won’t stop anyone.

    Yup.   Nobody was going to get impeached out.   I doubt this event will change future draft opinions.  Remember, by the day of the public hearing, the justices have already made up their minds. 

    • #5
  6. OldPhil Coolidge
    OldPhil
    @OldPhil

    DonG (CAGW is a Scam) (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Unless this means that the NEXT TIME Monia Motomayor leaks an opinion there will be hell to pay, which seems unlikely, what difference does it really make?

    If the next leaks just means they round up 82 employees for affidavits again, that won’t stop anyone.

    Yup. Nobody was going to get impeached out. I doubt this event will change future draft opinions. Remember, by the day of the public hearing, the justices have already made up their minds.

    At this point, I think the left would be happy to see Monia impeached so they could get someone 20 years younger on the Court. They were grumbling a few weeks ago that she and/or Melena Magan should retire now while the Senate is in Mhucky Mhumer’s hands.

    • #6
  7. 9thDistrictNeighbor Member
    9thDistrictNeighbor
    @9thDistrictNeighbor

    So whoever it was got away with it.  Alrighty then.

    • #7
  8. EODmom Coolidge
    EODmom
    @EODmom

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Still could have been an employee, who lied despite the affidavits.

    Just because they sign affidavits doesn’t make it impossible for them to lie.

    It means if they’re later found to have lied, they can be prosecuted, but how likely is that to happen?

    If they were not troubled by leaking, why would they be troubled about lying about it? 
    But altogether seems unlikely that anyone will be identified nor prosecuted, hmmm?

    • #8
  9. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    Steve Fast (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Still could have been an employee, who lied despite the affidavits.

    Just because they sign affidavits doesn’t make it impossible for them to lie.

    It means if they’re later found to have lied, they can be prosecuted, but how likely is that to happen?

    It could have been an employee who lied, but that they didn’t investigate the justices seems to be a major gap in the investigation. I think they knew exactly who did it, but for reasons of workplace comity, Roberts decided not to out Sotomayor publicly. He had a big investigation as a warning to everyone that this would not be tolerated in the future. If he didn’t make a big deal of it, leaking of opinions might become common.

    What are Robert’s options for punishment? I guess he could behave in a very angry way. What about the newest Justice who, as a woman herself, has no idea what a woman is? Wasn’t she on the Court at the time?

    • #9
  10. mildlyo Member
    mildlyo
    @mildlyo

    Why not blackball every supreme court clerk from that year/session until someone cracks?

    Don’t guess, just make it clear that any company or organization that hires any of them is on a SCOTUS hit list.

    • #10
  11. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Heh, heh. Success.

    • #11
  12. Steve Fast Coolidge
    Steve Fast
    @SteveFast

    cdor (View Comment):

    Steve Fast (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Still could have been an employee, who lied despite the affidavits.

    Just because they sign affidavits doesn’t make it impossible for them to lie.

    It means if they’re later found to have lied, they can be prosecuted, but how likely is that to happen?

    It could have been an employee who lied, but that they didn’t investigate the justices seems to be a major gap in the investigation. I think they knew exactly who did it, but for reasons of workplace comity, Roberts decided not to out Sotomayor publicly. He had a big investigation as a warning to everyone that this would not be tolerated in the future. If he didn’t make a big deal of it, leaking of opinions might become common.

    What are Robert’s options for punishment? I guess he could behave in a very angry way. What about the newest Justice who, as a woman herself, has no idea what a woman is? Wasn’t she on the Court at the time?

    I think this is Roberts’ best option and quite an effective one. I’m sure the other justices know that it was Monia who did it (if that is indeed the case). Either she has had to apologize to the other justices or endure their icy disdain for years to come. In a collegial environment such as the Court, this is probably the harshest punishment of all.

    • #12
  13. Matt Bartle Member
    Matt Bartle
    @MattBartle

    Note the very careful language they used: “unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence.” 

    I wonder what they would say if the standard were “who it almost certainly was we just can’t prove it.”

     

    • #13
  14. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Matt Bartle (View Comment):

    Note the very careful language they used: “unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence.”

    I wonder what they would say if the standard were “who it almost certainly was we just can’t prove it.”

     

    Correct.  There is a lack of interest in “proving it.”  

    • #14
  15. Steve Fast Coolidge
    Steve Fast
    @SteveFast

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Matt Bartle (View Comment):

    Note the very careful language they used: “unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence.”

    I wonder what they would say if the standard were “who it almost certainly was we just can’t prove it.”

     

    Correct. There is a lack of interest in “proving it.”

    I think there was a lack of interest in proving it publicly because all the justices know who did it and wanted to keep it in-house.

    The big question is whether or not the leaker has made amends. Alito said in October 2022 that the leak had made him and the other conservative justices targets for assassination. I don’t think he would have said that if the leaker had apologized. So either Monia apologized after October (and that is why the report came out now) or it is an unresolved problem.

    • #15
  16. Steve Fast Coolidge
    Steve Fast
    @SteveFast

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Heh, heh. Success.

    Did you get your fee?

    • #16
  17. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Steve Fast (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Matt Bartle (View Comment):

    Note the very careful language they used: “unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence.”

    I wonder what they would say if the standard were “who it almost certainly was we just can’t prove it.”

     

    Correct. There is a lack of interest in “proving it.”

    I think there was a lack of interest in proving it publicly because all the justices know who did it and wanted to keep it in-house.

    The big question is whether or not the leaker has made amends. Alito said in October 2022 that the leak had made him and the other conservative justices targets for assassination. I don’t think he would have said that if the leaker had apologized. So either Monia apologized after October (and that is why the report came out now) or it is an unresolved problem.

    Wouldn’t they have been “targets for assassination” once the decision came out, regardless?  It’s not like who-voted-which-way is ever kept secret.

    • #17
  18. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    I have had two thoughts since this happened: 1) Sotomayor is responsible, 2) Roberts is a coward. 

    Well, actually a third: Nothing will be done. 

    • #18
  19. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Might rhyme with Bonn Gobberts.  That cheese-bag has trod upon the Constitution to avoid dampening the hem of the Court before.  He is a coward and a liar.

    • #19
  20. Nohaaj Coolidge
    Nohaaj
    @Nohaaj

    BDB (View Comment):

    Might rhyme with Bonn Gobberts. That cheese-bag has trod upon the Constitution to avoid dampening the hem of the Court before. He is a coward and a liar.

    I actually think the odd were 50/50 between Bonn and Monia being the leakers. Bonn has been worse than squishy, he had rewritten the constitution to justify Obamacare. 

    • #20
  21. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Nohaaj (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Might rhyme with Bonn Gobberts. That cheese-bag has trod upon the Constitution to avoid dampening the hem of the Court before. He is a coward and a liar.

    I actually think the odd were 50/50 between Bonn and Monia being the leakers. Bonn has been worse than squishy, he had rewritten the constitution to justify Obamacare.

    But would Bonn think that outside pressure would change votes?  That seems like the kind of thing a liberal/leftist such as Monia might believe.

    • #21
  22. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Nohaaj (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Might rhyme with Bonn Gobberts. That cheese-bag has trod upon the Constitution to avoid dampening the hem of the Court before. He is a coward and a liar.

    I actually think the odd were 50/50 between Bonn and Monia being the leakers. Bonn has been worse than squishy, he had rewritten the constitution to justify Obamacare.

    But would Bonn think that outside pressure would change votes? That seems like the kind of thing a liberal/leftist such as Monia might believe.

    Outside pressure changed his vote on ObamaCare.  He’s a believer.

    • #22
  23. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    BDB (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Nohaaj (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Might rhyme with Bonn Gobberts. That cheese-bag has trod upon the Constitution to avoid dampening the hem of the Court before. He is a coward and a liar.

    I actually think the odd were 50/50 between Bonn and Monia being the leakers. Bonn has been worse than squishy, he had rewritten the constitution to justify Obamacare.

    But would Bonn think that outside pressure would change votes? That seems like the kind of thing a liberal/leftist such as Monia might believe.

    Outside pressure changed his vote on ObamaCare. He’s a believer.

    I thought about making it “change votes of people like Clarence Thomas” but it didn’t seem necessary.  I guess I should have.

    Maybe Bonn Gobberts does think other people are just as malleable as himself.  Another big mistake on his part.

    • #23
  24. Vance Richards Member
    Vance Richards
    @VanceRichards

    Steve Fast: couldn’t find the leaker

    Couldn’t, or chose not to?

    • #24
  25. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Vance Richards (View Comment):

    Steve Fast: couldn’t find the leaker

    Couldn’t, or chose not to?

    Or found, but didn’t admit/reveal?

    • #25
  26. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    FWIW: Supreme Court Report Sparks Suspicions About Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito (msn.com)

    • #26
  27. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Django (View Comment):

    FWIW: Supreme Court Report Sparks Suspicions About Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito (msn.com)

    So really, their not doing a full investigation is just going to add fuel to the fire. Roberts is a crappy head justice.

    • #27
  28. Steve Fast Coolidge
    Steve Fast
    @SteveFast

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Vance Richards (View Comment):

    Steve Fast: couldn’t find the leaker

    Couldn’t, or chose not to?

    Or found, but didn’t admit/reveal?

    They couldn’t find the leaker where they were looking (the staff) because that wasn’t where the leaker (a justice) was to be found.

    • #28
  29. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Stina (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    FWIW: Supreme Court Report Sparks Suspicions About Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito (msn.com)

    So really, their not doing a full investigation is just going to add fuel to the fire. Roberts is a crappy head justice.

    I don’t know. We had someone here at ricochet who is/was a law professor who spoke positively about “the work of John Roberts”. To this non-lawyer, Roberts does seem to be an institutionalist who is more concerned about the status of the SCOTUS than anything else.  He might be more willing to squelch this if the leaker is a justice rather than a clerk (<– or whatever they call those assistants).

    • #29
  30. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Django (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    FWIW: Supreme Court Report Sparks Suspicions About Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito (msn.com)

    So really, their not doing a full investigation is just going to add fuel to the fire. Roberts is a crappy head justice.

    I don’t know. We had someone here at ricochet who is/was a law professor who spoke positively about “the work of John Roberts”. To this non-lawyer, Roberts does seem to be an institutionalist who is more concerned about the status of the SCOTUS than anything else. He might be more willing to squelch this if the leaker is a justice rather than a clerk (<– or whatever they call those assistants).

    Not a bad justice, just a bad head of it. His decisions, ostensibly meant to not create division, ultimately end up making things worse.

    The truth will set you free. But to fail to pursue the truth because the immediate aftermath will be messy is not helpful.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.