My leaker prediction - someone on Thomas's staff

Damocles said:
LOL. This is like watching a game of Werewolf... Folks pretending they "know" who a wolf is then voting to get rid of someone that turns out was a villager.

Anyway... Thomas's "crazy wife" would have leaked more than just this decision over the time he's been there if she was the source. I do not believe you are right about whether she is crazy and leaked it, or that someone in his staff was the leak. It is far more likely someone newly around SCOTUS decisions decided to leak it for their own purposes. Of course they didn't leak a more recent version, probably because later versions don't sound like it at all and may not even overturn the two cases (Roe and Casey, not just Roe) entirely.
Click to expand...

If there are later versions, then we could find out that the first draft was thrown in the trash in which case it could have been a janitor or a worker for the company hired to shred documents. The copy doesn't have a date so we don't know when it was sent.

You sure this isn't more like a game of Secret Hitler as opposed to Werewolf?
 
Flash said:
Some clerk will take the blame.
Click to expand...

Disagreed. If a clerk is found to be the leaker then they will be revealed. If it’s a Justice themselves, then that may be kept under wraps by all the Justices to protect the integrity of the court, not the leaker.

Regardless, the integrity and trust of SCOTUS has been deteriorating for the past several years. When a nation doesn’t trust it’s own courts, especially it’s highest court, then both the court and We, the People have a serious problem. All this finger-pointing bullshit isn’t helping.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
If there are later versions, then we could find out that the first draft was thrown in the trash in which case it could have been a janitor or a worker for the company hired to shred documents. The copy doesn't have a date so we don't know when it was sent.

You sure this isn't more like a game of Secret Hitler as opposed to Werewolf?
Click to expand...
A good point but if it was a janitor then why has this never happened before? At least not in living memory.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Disagreed. If a clerk is found to be the leaker then they will be revealed. If it’s a Justice themselves, then that may be kept under wraps by all the Justices to protect the integrity of the court, not the leaker.

Regardless, the integrity and trust of SCOTUS has been deteriorating for the past several years. When a nation doesn’t trust it’s own courts, especially it’s highest court, then both the court and We, the People have a serious problem. All this finger-pointing bullshit isn’t helping.
Click to expand...
This court has never been more empowered to do whatever they wish. There are no checks now, given the Congress that is 100% dysfunctional.
 
Althea said:
This court has never been more empowered to do whatever they wish. There are no checks now, given the Congress that is 100% dysfunctional.
Click to expand...

Sadly, I have to agree. Congress doesn’t hold themselves accountable, they don’t hold the President accountable and now they’ll prove they don’t hold SCOTUS accountable.

EVhzPR9XYAEirmz.jpg
 
Dutch Uncle said:
If it’s a Justice themselves, then that may be kept under wraps by all the Justices to protect the integrity of the court, not the leaker.
Click to expand...

Six of the Justices want to protect the reputation of the court through lies, but that is not actually protecting the integrity of the court. The other three Justices want to expose the lies, which would hurt the reputation of the court, but hopefully protect the integrity. So if the leaker is known to all the Justices, we can expect it to be announced by three of the Justices.
 
Walt said:
Six of the Justices want to protect the reputation of the court through lies, but that is not actually protecting the integrity of the court. The other three Justices want to expose the lies, which would hurt the reputation of the court, but hopefully protect the integrity. So if the leaker is known to all the Justices, we can expect it to be announced by three of the Justices.
Click to expand...

Can’t they just ask Congress to investigate?
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Can’t they just ask Congress to investigate?
Click to expand...

Maybe. I do not think they have asked either Congress or anyone in the executive branch to investigate. No one is really sure who is supposed to investigate. If it were a crime, I guess the FBI or some other executive branch police force would investigate... But no one is sure that it is a crime.

Given that the majority of the Justices do not want anyone to investigate, can Congress or the executive branch investigate against their will?

Thomas lied about his income, and where he was making it. He was caught. At that point, a normal government employee would at least be fired, and might be prosecuted. Thomas needed to be impeached. There is no chance for him to be convicted by 67 Senators, so what is the point.

Then Thomas refused to recuse himself from a case which involved his own wife (an extreme conflict of interest). He claimed it did not involve his wife, but it turned out that both he and his wife were lying. She was definitely at the January 6th protests. Again, nothing can be done about it.

The traditions of democracy and law are breaking down. I have no idea what to do about it.
 
Walt said:
Maybe. I do not think they have asked either Congress or anyone in the executive branch to investigate. No one is really sure who is supposed to investigate. If it were a crime, I guess the FBI or some other executive branch police force would investigate... But no one is sure that it is a crime.

Given that the majority of the Justices do not want anyone to investigate, can Congress or the executive branch investigate against their will?

Thomas lied about his income, and where he was making it. He was caught. At that point, a normal government employee would at least be fired, and might be prosecuted. Thomas needed to be impeached. There is no chance for him to be convicted by 67 Senators, so what is the point.

Then Thomas refused to recuse himself from a case which involved his own wife (an extreme conflict of interest). He claimed it did not involve his wife, but it turned out that both he and his wife were lying. She was definitely at the January 6th protests. Again, nothing can be done about it.

The traditions of democracy and law are breaking down. I have no idea what to do about it.
Click to expand...

If Congress can impeach a justice then it fits that they should be able to investigate them too.
 
Concart said:
After making this big a deal out of the leak, I have no idea how they aren't going to punish the offender. But then I've said 'there's no way that.....' so many times in the last five years, and it seems like I'm always wrong.
Click to expand...

Well you've got something right for once, you ARE always wrong.
 
Last edited:
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Are you her token mentally disabled staff member at this point? Being liberal she is require to have one.

She has not been sworn in as a justice and won't be until next October. Claiming she or or staff did it is asinine.
Click to expand...

Why, surely her staff will have been appointed by now and already in place? You ought to consult with your mate Elon Musk, you could send him a tweet!!
 
Walt said:
Why would a Democrat want to lock in Roe v. Wade being overturned?
Click to expand...

Agreed it doesn’t make sense.

Although I hate to speak ill of a fellow JPP member, I think PmP is simply shit-slinging….again. :cool:
 
PostmodernProphet said:
to vent their rage......and hopefully prevent it........you know, same reason as all the insurrectionists hanging outside the justices homes....
Click to expand...

Releasing a draft before it was going to be softened for political reasons would not prevent it, but only prevent it from being softened.
 
Leading theory' is conservative clerk leaked abortion opinion

"The leading theory is a conservative clerk who was afraid that one of the conservatives might be persuaded by Chief Justice Roberts to join a much more moderate opinion," Totenberg said during an appearance Sunday on ABC's This Week.

"There's another theory that it was an outraged liberal clerk, but I think the only one that makes sense is that it came from somebody who was afraid this majority might not hold — that Chief Justice Roberts might persuade one of the conservatives to come over to him," Totenberg added.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...id=EMMX&cvid=daec0af31c664b789871aae17d2680db
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top