Legal/scotus thread

[cajunrevenge]

[cajunrevenge]

The FBI sent 15 agents to investigate a garage door pull that wasn't big enough to hang a child. I wonder how many will be sent to investigate a security breach of the Supreme Court.

what crime would the leaker really be guilty of? The person simply told the public whats about to happen. They asked for this ****storm but somehow its the leakers fault. Are they maybe afraid of some Republican style legitimate political discourse?

[Jaw]

what crime would the leaker really be guilty of? The person simply told the public whats about to happen. They asked for this ****storm but somehow its the leakers fault. Are they maybe afraid of some Republican style legitimate political discourse?

We're not going after a Republican presidential candidate here Cajun, this would be an actual investigation intended to discover real facts. That means not accusing of a crime until after the investigation finds evidence. Kinda like playing Clue.

[The Chosen One]

I believe Roberts leaked this.

He's tried to move to the center now that the balance of the court has shifted so far.

[cajunrevenge]

We're not going after a Republican presidential candidate here Cajun, this would be an actual investigation intended to discover real facts. That means not accusing of a crime until after the investigation finds evidence. Kinda like playing Clue.

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, wut. If you took a **** on your keyboard and hit post it would have made more sense.

[striker42]

A few thoughts:

First, this kind of leak is unprecedented. The secrecy surrounding court decisions before they're released is almost sacred in the legal world and those who work for the SCOTUS. Someone leaking an opinion is a heinous act. I do not believe one of the justices would leak it. The secrecy benefits them too much and they all want to protect the institution that it took their entire careers to reach. This is just horrifying to anyone in the legal community.

Second, this probably isn't a crime but it could be. If this was leaked by one of the administrative personnel and they stole the copy they leaked, that could be a crime. If it does turn out to be a crime I expect the judge to throw the book at the perpetrator. Most likely it was someone who had legitimate access to the opinion and since it's not classified it's not a crime to leak it.

I suspect it was one of the clerks (who are all attorneys). The clerks all have access to the draft opinions and they also have the legal acumen to make the right choice of what to leak. If they find out which one it was then that attorney will be disbarred. It may not be a crime but it's a horrible violation of the rules of professional conduct and an attorney's ethical obligation. If it is a clerk and they find out which one, that clerk's life is ruined. Not only will they be disbarred, they will have powerful members of the legal community dedicated to ruining their life.

I don't know if it was someone on the right or the left that leaked this. Someone on the left might see the opinion as desperate times calling for the desperate measure of leaking the draft while someone on the right might leak it in order to lock the justices into their positions as the justices wont want to be seen as flipping due to this release. Clever and sometimes highly ideological people clerk for the SCOTUS so I really don't know which it is.

This draft opinion might look nothing like the final decision. The justices take an initial vote and then they begin to write and circulate opinions. The reasoning behind a decision can be more important than the decision itself and you need a majority of justices to agree on the reasoning. You even sometimes have opinions where the opinion of the court is constrained by a concurrence as the concurrence might not go as far as the opinion of the court but since the concurring justice is needed to get a majority, there is only a majority as far as the concurrence goes. Also, there are times where people flip their votes in the process. Sometimes a majority opinion goes too far and the dissent is aimed at a justice on the fence causing the justice on the fence to flip and make the dissent the opinion of the court. That happened with the Obama care case. People need to understand this isn't like a proof copy of a book being leaked.

Finally, I'm lamenting the deluge of Google Lawyers this is creating. My news feed is filled with poorly reasoned nonsense from people who have never read a statute, much less an opinion of the Supreme Court. Whenever I hear "Hands off my body" I can't help but think "You're assuming the fetus is your body, that's bad logic." And every time I see "Abortion is murder" I can't help but think "You're assuming a fetus is a person, that's bad logic." No one wants to debate the legal and moral status of a fetus because there are no clear answers. It's much cleaner to assume their status because that gives you the right to moral outrage.

[Tapate50]

what crime would the leaker really be guilty of? The person simply told the public whats about to happen. They asked for this ****storm but somehow its the leakers fault. Are they maybe afraid of some Republican style legitimate political discourse?

IDK but they ass gonna **** around and find out.

I'd probable leave this to the more judicially educated here before chiming in.

You and I can discuss the Chappelle insurrection instead.

[Jaw]

A few thoughts:

First, this kind of leak is unprecedented. The secrecy surrounding court decisions before they're released is almost sacred in the legal world and those who work for the SCOTUS. Someone leaking an opinion is a heinous act. I do not believe one of the justices would leak it. The secrecy benefits them too much and they all want to protect the institution that it took their entire careers to reach. This is just horrifying to anyone in the legal community.

Second, this probably isn't a crime but it could be. If this was leaked by one of the administrative personnel and they stole the copy they leaked, that could be a crime. If it does turn out to be a crime I expect the judge to throw the book at the perpetrator. Most likely it was someone who had legitimate access to the opinion and since it's not classified it's not a crime to leak it.

I suspect it was one of the clerks (who are all attorneys). The clerks all have access to the draft opinions and they also have the legal acumen to make the right choice of what to leak. If they find out which one it was then that attorney will be disbarred. It may not be a crime but it's a horrible violation of the rules of professional conduct and an attorney's ethical obligation. If it is a clerk and they find out which one, that clerk's life is ruined. Not only will they be disbarred, they will have powerful members of the legal community dedicated to ruining their life.

I don't know if it was someone on the right or the left that leaked this. Someone on the left might see the opinion as desperate times calling for the desperate measure of leaking the draft while someone on the right might leak it in order to lock the justices into their positions as the justices wont want to be seen as flipping due to this release. Clever and sometimes highly ideological people clerk for the SCOTUS so I really don't know which it is.

This draft opinion might look nothing like the final decision. The justices take an initial vote and then they begin to write and circulate opinions. The reasoning behind a decision can be more important than the decision itself and you need a majority of justices to agree on the reasoning. You even sometimes have opinions where the opinion of the court is constrained by a concurrence as the concurrence might not go as far as the opinion of the court but since the concurring justice is needed to get a majority, there is only a majority as far as the concurrence goes. Also, there are times where people flip their votes in the process. Sometimes a majority opinion goes too far and the dissent is aimed at a justice on the fence causing the justice on the fence to flip and make the dissent the opinion of the court. That happened with the Obama care case. People need to understand this isn't like a proof copy of a book being leaked.

Finally, I'm lamenting the deluge of Google Lawyers this is creating. My news feed is filled with poorly reasoned nonsense from people who have never read a statute, much less an opinion of the Supreme Court. Whenever I hear "Hands off my body" I can't help but think "You're assuming the fetus is your body, that's bad logic." And every time I see "Abortion is murder" I can't help but think "You're assuming a fetus is a person, that's bad logic." No one wants to debate the legal and moral status of a fetus because there are no clear answers. It's much cleaner to assume their status because that gives you the right to moral outrage.

Are we talking about a couple of dozen people that would see the draft, or hundreds?

[msstate7]

A few thoughts:

First, this kind of leak is unprecedented. The secrecy surrounding court decisions before they're released is almost sacred in the legal world and those who work for the SCOTUS. Someone leaking an opinion is a heinous act. I do not believe one of the justices would leak it. The secrecy benefits them too much and they all want to protect the institution that it took their entire careers to reach. This is just horrifying to anyone in the legal community.

Second, this probably isn't a crime but it could be. If this was leaked by one of the administrative personnel and they stole the copy they leaked, that could be a crime. If it does turn out to be a crime I expect the judge to throw the book at the perpetrator. Most likely it was someone who had legitimate access to the opinion and since it's not classified it's not a crime to leak it.

I suspect it was one of the clerks (who are all attorneys). The clerks all have access to the draft opinions and they also have the legal acumen to make the right choice of what to leak. If they find out which one it was then that attorney will be disbarred. It may not be a crime but it's a horrible violation of the rules of professional conduct and an attorney's ethical obligation. If it is a clerk and they find out which one, that clerk's life is ruined. Not only will they be disbarred, they will have powerful members of the legal community dedicated to ruining their life.

I don't know if it was someone on the right or the left that leaked this. Someone on the left might see the opinion as desperate times calling for the desperate measure of leaking the draft while someone on the right might leak it in order to lock the justices into their positions as the justices wont want to be seen as flipping due to this release. Clever and sometimes highly ideological people clerk for the SCOTUS so I really don't know which it is.

This draft opinion might look nothing like the final decision. The justices take an initial vote and then they begin to write and circulate opinions. The reasoning behind a decision can be more important than the decision itself and you need a majority of justices to agree on the reasoning. You even sometimes have opinions where the opinion of the court is constrained by a concurrence as the concurrence might not go as far as the opinion of the court but since the concurring justice is needed to get a majority, there is only a majority as far as the concurrence goes. Also, there are times where people flip their votes in the process. Sometimes a majority opinion goes too far and the dissent is aimed at a justice on the fence causing the justice on the fence to flip and make the dissent the opinion of the court. That happened with the Obama care case. People need to understand this isn't like a proof copy of a book being leaked.

Finally, I'm lamenting the deluge of Google Lawyers this is creating. My news feed is filled with poorly reasoned nonsense from people who have never read a statute, much less an opinion of the Supreme Court. Whenever I hear "Hands off my body" I can't help but think "You're assuming the fetus is your body, that's bad logic." And every time I see "Abortion is murder" I can't help but think "You're assuming a fetus is a person, that's bad logic." No one wants to debate the legal and moral status of a fetus because there are no clear answers. It's much cleaner to assume their status because that gives you the right to moral outrage.

Give me a break, dude. It took me about a month of Covid to reach expert status on infectious diseases. Give me a few more weeks, and I'll have this law stuff down pat also

[sturg33]

It's an outrage that pregnant men are not storming the supreme court with this assault on their rights

Shameful, men!

[striker42]

Are we talking about a couple of dozen people that would see the draft, or hundreds?

It's hard to say. The justices and their clerks would all have easy access to this. That's 45 at least. I'm not sure if Jackson has a staff or is getting included in the circulation of opinions yet to prepare her for the transition to the court. If she is the number could be as high as 50.

The administrative personnel that would have access is harder to say. Were people used to make physical copies? Do any of the justices let secretaries have access to everything? For something as big as this case I'd be surprised if it was more than 100 people.

I'm betting the Marshal starts with the clerks. They have to be the prime suspects. They all have access to the opinions, they have the legal understanding to know what they're looking at and know what it means, and you get ideologues in that group.

[Runnin]

I don't see how actually ending abortion can be good for Republicans, while having it as an issue to fuel their base is. The fallout from abortion being illegal will only create more havoc for women and a backlash against Republicans.

[sturg33]

I don't see how actually ending abortion can be good for Republicans, while having it as an issue to fuel their base is. The fallout from abortion being illegal will only create more havoc for women and a backlash against Republicans.

Women are already dumb to support the communists.

Now the dem politicians get to define when an abortion is no longer allowed.

They are.going to have a tough time. But the biggest winners are the future people who aren't slaughtered

[Tapate50]

I don't see how actually ending abortion can be good for Republicans, while having it as an issue to fuel their base is. The fallout from abortion being illegal will only create more havoc for women and a backlash against Republicans.

Just say you don’t know what this is about and move on.

[goldfly]

Just say you don’t know what this is about and move on.

Oh, let’s not move on

Let’s have you inform the class of what’s really going on then

[goldfly]

Women are already dumb to support the communists.

Now the dem politicians get to define when an abortion is no longer allowed.

They are.going to have a tough time. But the biggest winners are the future people who aren't slaughtered

Lol, you’re too much man.

[sturg33]

Women are already dumb to support the communists.

Now the dem politicians get to define when an abortion is no longer allowed.

They are.going to have a tough time. But the biggest winners are the future people who aren't slaughtered

Have fun winning a race in Ohio on this message

He's trying to win the twitter seal election

[goldfly]

Yes, we know you are being disingenuous with the way you present “late term abortions”

99.9999999999% are needed medical procedures that can kill the woman and the baby will not survive

It is practically zero the way you want to paint it of someone going all the way through the hardships of pregnancy and then deciding last minute “I just don’t want this”


It’s wild how many people are seriously down to let women die from an ectopic pregnancy

“Pro life” lol

[sturg33]

Great it will be awesome to see leftists define the law that way.

The moat extreme abortion laws in the world sit right here in the US.

Most countries are not as monstrous when it comes to the most.vulnerable

[goldfly]

Great it will be awesome to see leftists define the law that way.

The moat extreme abortion laws in the world sit right here in the US.

Most countries are not as monstrous when it comes to the most.vulnerable

Cool


You and your gang aren’t fighting to have those laws you just cited though lol

So, that point is really just irrelevant