SCOTUS Leak

[jficke13]

Never claimed to be an expert.  You obviously know waaaaayyyyy more in this space.  Are you aware of anything like this happening before?

Look bud, I know you're up from the seaworld to thump your chest and look for fish and all, but really you're comically off base here.

"Nurse, has the patient eaten anything today?"

"No, doctor... he has a massive malignant tumor in his stomach."

"It's important that he eats to keep up his strength. The fact that he isn't eating is very concerning."

You're gleeful because the result you want is happening and are trolling by tenting your fingers in Very Serious Concern over the decorum of the Court, but really the fact that decorum of the Court was violated is the thing that is telling the world something... it's just something entirely different from the conclusion you want to pretend to draw from it.

But whatever man, enjoy your evening and the plaudits of the five people on this message board who reflexively agree with you, I guess?

[Pakuni]

Never claimed to be an expert.  You obviously know waaaaayyyyy more in this space.  Are you aware of anything like this happening before?

Five justices capriciously overturning a right that's been reaffirmed by the court multiple times over 50 years, after every single one of them pledged under oath to respect precedent?
First I'm aware of.

[pacearrow02]

Look bud, I know you're up from the seaworld to thump your chest and look for fish and all, but really you're comically off base here.

"Nurse, has the patient eaten anything today?"

"No, doctor... he has a massive malignant tumor in his stomach."

"It's important that he eats to keep up his strength. The fact that he isn't eating is very concerning."

You're gleeful because the result you want is happening and are trolling by tenting your fingers in Very Serious Concern over the decorum of the Court, but really the fact that decorum of the Court was violated is the thing that is telling the world something... it's just something entirely different from the conclusion you want to pretend to draw from it.

But whatever man, enjoy your evening and the plaudits of the five people on this message board who reflexively agree with you, I guess?

So is that a no?

[forgetful]

You probably shouldn't post when you've had weed.

I don't know. This place might be a little better if only people posted after they had weed.

[buckchuckler]

Five justices capriciously overturning a right that's been reaffirmed by the court multiple times over 50 years, after every single one of them pledged under oath to respect precedent?
First I'm aware of.

https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/

You've heard of at least some of these I'd wager. 

[Mucubfan]

https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/

You've heard of at least some of these I'd wager.

I’ll never forget when someone on The Scoop started a thread after Ward v. Race Horse was overturned. I still remember where I was that day. Thanks for reminding me. Really good comparisons to this moment right there.

[Pakuni]

https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/

You've heard of at least some of these I'd wager.

Which of these fit the fact pattern I laid out? Which resulted in the deprivation of what had been deemed a constitutional right by multiple courts?

[buckchuckler]

I’ll never forget when someone on The Scoop started a thread after Ward v. Race Horse was overturned. I still remember where I was that day. Thanks for reminding me. Really good comparisons to this moment right there.

Yeah well obviously they all aren't cases in the public conscious, but you probably heard of a couple of them, like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Hawaii

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges

[buckchuckler]

Which of these fit the fact pattern I laid out? Which resulted in the deprivation of what had been deemed a constitutional right by multiple courts?

Yeah I don't remember the confirmation process of all the justices, so I don't know.  But to pretend that the Supreme Court overturning a Supreme Court decision is some sort of sacrilege is crazy.

[buckchuckler]

Which of these fit the fact pattern I laid out? Which resulted in the deprivation of what had been deemed a constitutional right by multiple courts?

And this is clearly the best case name

A Book Named “John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure” v. Attorney General,

[Pakuni]

Yeah I don't remember the confirmation process of all the justices, so I don't know.  But to pretend that the Supreme Court overturning a Supreme Court decision is rare is pretty ignorant.

Cool. I never said - or pretended - that no Supreme Court decision had ever been overturned.
Could you give me an example, however, of when the court specifically eliminated something that previous courts had deemed a constitutional right? Or are we just using Google to find a link of overturned cases unrelated to the topic at hand?

[Pakuni]

A long Twitter thread for pace:

https://twitter.com/jonathanwpeters/status/1521309806430236672?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

@jonathanwpeters
It's remarkable, the leak of what appears to be an initial draft majority opinion. SCOTUS generally has kept its secrets and has kept confidential its internal processes and deliberations. But the Court does occasionally leak, and it has leaked before about Roe v. Wade. 1/x

Its recorded history of leaks dates back to mid-19th century. Some leaks have commented on a decision after its release. Others have provided accounts of personal relationships/conflicts among the justices. And, yes, some opinions have leaked before release.

Consider the 1852 case Pennsylvania v. Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company. Ten days before the Court handed down its decision, the New York Tribune reported the outcome.

Two years later, the bridge case returned to the Court, and again the Tribune scooped the justices before they made their decision public. Later that year, the Tribune published a running account of the deliberations in Dred Scott.

Historians have speculated that these leaks came from Justice John McLean, who authored the first bridge opinion before dissenting in the second one, as well as Dred Scott.

The 1970s brought a wave of leaks. First, Justice Douglas in June 1972 wrote a memo to his colleagues about Roe v. Wade. Somehow, it reached the Washington Post, which published a story about the memo and the Court’s inner deliberations.

Then, Time magazine published a story about Roe v. Wade before the court announced it, reporting the outcome and the vote. Infuriated, Burger demanded a meeting with Time’s editors, chastising them for scooping the court.

The chief justice believed a law clerk was to blame, so he ordered all clerks not to speak to reporters. This resulted in what became known as the “20-second rule”: Any clerk caught talking to a reporter would be fired within 20 seconds.

In 1977, NPR penetrated the justices’ conference by reporting that they had voted 5-3 not to review the convictions of three defendants in the Watergate cover-up cases.

The story, obtained by Nina Totenberg and confirmed by the New York Times, also reported that Burger had delayed the announcement of that decision so he could try to recruit the fourth vote necessary to review the convictions.

A couple years later, Burger was still fighting leaks. In 1979, he reassigned a typesetter at the Court’s printing office after concluding that the typesetter had leaked nonpublic information to ABC correspondent Tim O’Brien.

Not long before, O’Brien had reported in advance the outcome of a case involving the right of courts to question reporters about their thoughts during the editorial process. O’Brien then broke another story in 1986, when he scooped the justices on a decision re: budget balancing.

O’Brien reported that on a particular day the Court would strike down a key part of a law. He was right about the outcome but not the day. Years later, a UPI reporter said Burger intentionally delayed the decision: “Burger was ticked off and just wanted to stick it to...O’Brien.”

Even more recently, CBS’s Jan Crawford reported in 2012 that Chief Justice Roberts voted to strike down the heart of the Affordable Care Act before changing his mind and siding with the court’s liberal bloc.

All of which is to say: Supreme Court leaks are rare and remarkable, but they are not unprecedented. I've done some research on this, and I'm just sharing for anyone who might be interested in this wider context. /end

[Mutaman]

Proving once again we need more women posting here at Scoop.

[jficke13]

Dang Pakuni, doing Pace’s homework… again.

You know maybe this time he’ll assimilate this information in good faith and not simply recalibrate his trolling like he’s done the last several hundred times.

[Uncle Rico]

Nope

[pacearrow02]

A long Twitter thread for pace:

https://twitter.com/jonathanwpeters/status/1521309806430236672?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

@jonathanwpeters
It's remarkable, the leak of what appears to be an initial draft majority opinion. SCOTUS generally has kept its secrets and has kept confidential its internal processes and deliberations. But the Court does occasionally leak, and it has leaked before about Roe v. Wade. 1/x

Its recorded history of leaks dates back to mid-19th century. Some leaks have commented on a decision after its release. Others have provided accounts of personal relationships/conflicts among the justices. And, yes, some opinions have leaked before release.

Consider the 1852 case Pennsylvania v. Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company. Ten days before the Court handed down its decision, the New York Tribune reported the outcome.

Two years later, the bridge case returned to the Court, and again the Tribune scooped the justices before they made their decision public. Later that year, the Tribune published a running account of the deliberations in Dred Scott.

Historians have speculated that these leaks came from Justice John McLean, who authored the first bridge opinion before dissenting in the second one, as well as Dred Scott.

The 1970s brought a wave of leaks. First, Justice Douglas in June 1972 wrote a memo to his colleagues about Roe v. Wade. Somehow, it reached the Washington Post, which published a story about the memo and the Court’s inner deliberations.

Then, Time magazine published a story about Roe v. Wade before the court announced it, reporting the outcome and the vote. Infuriated, Burger demanded a meeting with Time’s editors, chastising them for scooping the court.

The chief justice believed a law clerk was to blame, so he ordered all clerks not to speak to reporters. This resulted in what became known as the “20-second rule”: Any clerk caught talking to a reporter would be fired within 20 seconds.

In 1977, NPR penetrated the justices’ conference by reporting that they had voted 5-3 not to review the convictions of three defendants in the Watergate cover-up cases.

The story, obtained by Nina Totenberg and confirmed by the New York Times, also reported that Burger had delayed the announcement of that decision so he could try to recruit the fourth vote necessary to review the convictions.

A couple years later, Burger was still fighting leaks. In 1979, he reassigned a typesetter at the Court’s printing office after concluding that the typesetter had leaked nonpublic information to ABC correspondent Tim O’Brien.

Not long before, O’Brien had reported in advance the outcome of a case involving the right of courts to question reporters about their thoughts during the editorial process. O’Brien then broke another story in 1986, when he scooped the justices on a decision re: budget balancing.

O’Brien reported that on a particular day the Court would strike down a key part of a law. He was right about the outcome but not the day. Years later, a UPI reporter said Burger intentionally delayed the decision: “Burger was ticked off and just wanted to stick it to...O’Brien.”

Even more recently, CBS’s Jan Crawford reported in 2012 that Chief Justice Roberts voted to strike down the heart of the Affordable Care Act before changing his mind and siding with the court’s liberal bloc.

All of which is to say: Supreme Court leaks are rare and remarkable, but they are not unprecedented. I've done some research on this, and I'm just sharing for anyone who might be interested in this wider context. /end

Thanks Pakuni!!

[rocket surgeon]

Proving once again we need more women posting here at Scoop.

thanks muta woman

[🏀]

Boomers, just the worst.

[pacearrow02]

Dang Pakuni, doing Pace’s homework… again.

You know maybe this time he’ll assimilate this information in good faith and not simply recalibrate his trolling like he’s done the last several hundred times.

Come on.  Give credit to where credit is due to Mr. Jonathan Peters for doing the homework.  Pakuni just saw it on Twitter and copied the thread over to here.  It was useful and productive in providing context so appreciate him for passing it along. 

Not sure the leaks referenced in Mr Peters thread are exactly comparing apples to apples but interesting read none the less.

[wadesworld]

Come on.  Give credit to where credit is due to Mr. Jonathan Peters for doing the homework.  Pakuni just saw it on Twitter and copied the thread over to here.  It was useful and productive in providing context so appreciate him for passing it along. 

Not sure the leaks referenced in Mr Peters thread are exactly comparing apples to apples but interesting read none the less.

👏🏻

[jesmu84]

The good news is Alito explicitly mentions gay marriage and legalized sodomy in his opinion. I'm sure that's irrelevant

[rocket surgeon]

Given that no one knows “ for sure” who leaked this, but but weird how MOST are surmising which side of the aisle this is coming from. The ones who keep telling us our democracy is in “peril”   Being that I believe most would agree that this leak is above reproach, one would think the “journalistic” source could have exercised some self control and NOT reported it.  My understanding is this happens quite often, the “journalistic” integrity thing that is but this is another glaring example of why I believe “journalism” is dead. There are no standards or ethics anymore. 

If you want a litmus test of this, flip it around and imagine the reaction

If this leak turns out to be true, all it means is subject of abortion goes back to the states where it belonged all along.

[brewcity77]

I remember when separation of church and state was a thing. Fun times.

[4everwarriors]

This country is a joke to the rest of the world. Now relegated to third world status. Pity how the mighty have fallen, hey?

[🏀]

This country is a joke to the rest of the world. Now relegated to third world status. Pity how the mighty have fallen, hey?

Right on, DDS. Developed countries have done the right thing, not transgressed.