Supreme Court

[XtremeJibber2001]

Results of investigation on Dobbs leak: we couldn't find who did it and don't care anymore.

“After months of diligent analysis of forensic evidence and interviews of almost 100 employees, the Marshal’s team determined that no further investigation was warranted with respect to many of the ’82 employees [who] had access to electronic or hard copies of the draft opinion,'” the introduction reads.

The team was unable to identify a person responsible.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supre ... r-AA16wQqO

No way they don't know who it is, especially considering the small population with access. If they truly don't know who it is, they need to evaluate the controls they have in place around this type of information because they're ineffective. The fact they allow downloads to removable media on this kind of stuff is mind-blowing.

Does 'employees' include justices? Did the justices sign sworn affidavits affirming they did not disclose the draft opinion nor know anything about who did, like the employees? Not clear.

[easyrider16]

I doubt they have any controls on this sort of information. There's a degree of professionalism and honor that is expected at that level that, until recently, was the norm. It clearly no longer is, as the institution has become infected with the same sort of politicization as the other branches of government. It's a troubling development that this happened and that no one is being held accountable.

[boston_e]

Results of investigation on Dobbs leak: we couldn't find who did it and don't care anymore.

“After months of diligent analysis of forensic evidence and interviews of almost 100 employees, the Marshal’s team determined that no further investigation was warranted with respect to many of the ’82 employees [who] had access to electronic or hard copies of the draft opinion,'” the introduction reads.

The team was unable to identify a person responsible.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supre ... r-AA16wQqO

No way they don't know who it is, especially considering the small population with access. If they truly don't know who it is, they need to evaluate the controls they have in place around this type of information because they're ineffective. The fact they allow downloads to removable media on this kind of stuff is mind-blowing.

Does 'employees' include justices? Did the justices sign sworn affidavits affirming they did not disclose the draft opinion nor know anything about who did, like the employees? Not clear.

I'm sure they know who it is... probably Alito given his history.

[deadheadskier]

The President should step in and demand this investigation is seen through to completion.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Kind of silly that they brought in Michael Chertoff to review their investigation, instead of conducting it.

DHS - slim chance of that happening in this climate.

[easyrider16]

The President should step in and demand this investigation is seen through to completion.

Wouldn't change anything - separation of powers issue. SCOTUS could basically tell him to F off and there's nothing Biden could do about it.

I think we all understood from the start that this was an investigation for show that would turn up nothing. Key quote from the article I posted:

“The investigation focused on Court personnel — temporary (law clerks) and permanent employees — who had or may have had access to the draft opinion during the period from the initial circulation until the publication by Politico,” the report said. The report does not say explicitly whether the Justices were also investigated, though it suggests they were not.

Likely it was one of the justices, as the employees have a lot to lose by abusing their position. The justices basically have nothing to lose, as they are already at the pinnacle of their careers, and the only thing that could happen to them is impeachment. In this political climate that's highly unlikely to result in removal.

Of the judges, the most likely culprit is Thomas, whose wife is connected politically.

[deadheadskier]

If we are to have public faith / confidence in the highest court, this issue needs to be resolved. Biden should at least make a statement that the court has failed to police itself

[easyrider16]

If we are to have public faith / confidence in the highest court...

I think that ship has sailed after Dobbs. I think the only way we're going to have faith in the court restored is if Thomas dies and gets replaced with a left-leaning judge, Roberts takes a middle-ground position like O'Connor did, and then the court overturns Dobbs and reinstates Roe/Casey. To me the leak is kind of a side-show, a symptom of the real problem, which is the GOP appointing activist judges with the goal of achieving a political agenda.

For a long time, we had balance - 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and one middle-ground judge. It was under that regime that we got Roe/Casey, which I've often said is a pretty good compromise position on abortion. Now we have a lopsided right-wing court whose majority seems politically motivated.

If Biden really wants to solve the problem, he'd push legislation and constitutional amendments to change how this works. Term limits for judges, and perhaps an expanded court to make each appointment somewhat less influential. If it were up to me, I'd find a different way to appoint judges. Something like an independent, bipartisan committee of people who aren't elected, and is comprised of actual practicing attorneys.

[boston_e]

The President should step in and demand this investigation is seen through to completion.

Wouldn't change anything - separation of powers issue. SCOTUS could basically tell him to F off and there's nothing Biden could do about it.

I think we all understood from the start that this was an investigation for show that would turn up nothing. Key quote from the article I posted:

“The investigation focused on Court personnel — temporary (law clerks) and permanent employees — who had or may have had access to the draft opinion during the period from the initial circulation until the publication by Politico,” the report said. The report does not say explicitly whether the Justices were also investigated, though it suggests they were not.

Likely it was one of the justices, as the employees have a lot to lose by abusing their position. The justices basically have nothing to lose, as they are already at the pinnacle of their careers, and the only thing that could happen to them is impeachment. In this political climate that's highly unlikely to result in removal.

Of the judges, the most likely culprit is Thomas, whose wife is connected politically.

Maybe Thomas, but Alito has done it before - see Hobby Lobby.

In early June 2014, an Ohio couple who were Mr. Schenck’s star donors shared a meal with Justice Alito and his wife, Martha-Ann. A day later, Gayle Wright, one of the pair, contacted Mr. Schenck, according to an email reviewed by The Times. “Rob, if you want some interesting news please call. No emails,” she wrote.

Mr. Schenck said Mrs. Wright told him that the decision would be favorable to Hobby Lobby, and that Justice Alito had written the majority opinion. Three weeks later, that’s exactly what happened. The court ruled, in a 5-4 vote, that requiring family-owned corporations to pay for insurance covering contraception violated their religious freedoms. The decision would have major implications for birth control access, President Barack Obama’s new health care law and corporations’ ability to claim religious rights.

https://news.yahoo.com/justice-alito-al ... 00379.html

[easyrider16]

I will say that Alito's tone in Dobbs seemed quite inappropriate, especially considering the decision was overturning 50 years of precedent. There's a reason judges are reluctant to overturn well-settled precedent like that, and when they do it they usually take great pains to point out what has changed that made those original rulings no longer relevant. Take Brown v. Board of Education for example, which cited to all kinds of recent data that established that separate but equal was fundamentally unequal in practice. But in Dobbs, Alito just takes out his hatchet and chops down the precedent, providing no new justification for doing so, but instead claiming the judges who established the precedent were just flat out wrong and he and his new majority are right. If that's not judicial activism, I don't know what is.

[Bubba]

Results of investigation on Dobbs leak: we couldn't find who did it and don't care anymore.

“After months of diligent analysis of forensic evidence and interviews of almost 100 employees, the Marshal’s team determined that no further investigation was warranted with respect to many of the ’82 employees [who] had access to electronic or hard copies of the draft opinion,'” the introduction reads.

The team was unable to identify a person responsible.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supre ... r-AA16wQqO

Apparently the only ones not investigated were the justices themselves and their families.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Results of investigation on Dobbs leak: we couldn't find who did it and don't care anymore.

“After months of diligent analysis of forensic evidence and interviews of almost 100 employees, the Marshal’s team determined that no further investigation was warranted with respect to many of the ’82 employees [who] had access to electronic or hard copies of the draft opinion,'” the introduction reads.

The team was unable to identify a person responsible.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supre ... r-AA16wQqO

Apparently the only ones not investigated were the justices themselves and their families.

You might say intentionally excluding part of the population is akin to rigging it.

[Dickc]

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/2 ... n-00084793

Intersting take on the oral arguments before the court on student loan forgiveness.

I think the program needs changes, but I'm not if favor of the POTUS unilaterally forgiving this amount. I think Congress needs to do their jobs.

[easyrider16]

Blanket forgiveness is poor policy because lots of people like me who don't really need it would get their loans forgiven. But the legal question before the Court isn't whether this is good or bad policy, but whether the President has the legal authority to forgive the debt. That's a much more technical question of statutory interpretation, as Congress has already passed at least one statute that gives the President some authority to forgive student loans. The question is really about the parameters of that authority.

I also think there's a standing problem. How do the states have any standing to challenge the President's decisions regarding a federal student loan program? If Congress wants to do something to block this it can act. State governments, on the other hand, don't really have a say in the matter, do they?

[easyrider16]

I contend that the current "conservative" Supreme Court is more "activist" than it was before the last two appointments.

Definition of activist court - issuing court rulings based not on precedent and/or the plain language of the statute/rule/Constitution, but rather on ideological leanings to allow or impose policies that are consistent with that ideology.

I think this is evident from the Dobbs case, which represented a break from decades of precedent with little justification other than ideology. But it hasn't stopped there. The latest ruling in Sackett was decided similarly on ideological grounds, with even Justice Kavanaugh disagreeing with the majority to point out that they are breaking from decades of precedent and not honoring the plain language of the statute. Here's what Kavanaugh said in his concurring opinion:

In my view, the Court’s “continuous surface connection” test departs from the statutory text, from 45 years of consistent agency practice, and from this Court’s precedents.

So, where are the true conservatives who claim to dislike activist courts? Be consistent. Call this out for what it is.

Sources:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/05/supr ... water-act/
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 4_4g15.pdf