SCOTUS needs reform

"We are confident that the marshal, Col. Gail Curley, is highly competent in her duties, which include overseeing the court’s tiny police force, paying out the justices’ salaries, and shouting “oyez.” But count us skeptical that she has the tools necessary to conduct an effective probe of the leak. That’s not her fault, but the court’s: For decades, SCOTUS has resisted adopting the bare minimum reforms necessary to implement and enforce ethics rules, confidentiality guarantees, and basic transparency necessary for maintaining and ensuring the public trust.

Good faith efforts to understand the court’s unique position in the constitutional structure and need for independence, such as the months-long commission on Supreme Court reform, came up with dozens of suggestions about fixes the court could institute tomorrow, from meaningful disclosure requirements to binding ethics obligations. Those straightforward recommendations— not around court packing or term limits or jurisdiction-stripping, but the hardening of norms that apply to other public officials—are then characterized as vicious attacks on the independence of the judicial branch by some of the very same conservatives screaming today about prosecuting the leaker to the fullest extent of the criminal law.

We take no comfort or joy in the knowledge that the Supreme Court has less public legitimacy today than it did last week, or that the justices’ trust in one another is eroded yet again by what Justice Sonia Sotomayor characterized as the “stench” of politics that emanates from the building. But the fact is that the court did nothing in the face of ample evidence that it needed to enshrine mandates of transparency and ethical conduct into its own rules. Did the leaker violate the most fundamental norms of secrecy and privacy? Yes. But wailing that the court should continue to be allowed to police itself as the court utterly fails to police itself is not the answer."
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/the-supreme-courts-leak-investigation-is-a-farce.html

On this topic, the WSJ has had an inside source, for a decade, that they use for political purposes. It's really no different than the leaked draft, just less obvious. As you can guess, that leaker is hard Right. Might be the guy that leaked the Alito draft.

 

It does appear likely, based on the op-ed the WSJ published shortly before Politico published the draft, that the Journal had someone feeding it inside info. There was a similarly "insightful" op-ed published focusing on Roberts just before he sided with the majority in saving the ACA.
One of the ironies here is Roberts has long been known to be concerned about the public's perception of the Court. Specifically about its politicization. He's been given the chance to take a big step in addressing the issue by initiating ethics protocols. The kinds of things that would have required Thomas to recuse himself in cases involving Trump's asserted right to illegally stonewall Congress. Yet he's done nothing.

 

That's because he doesn't want to kill the horse he's riding. He's a radical, but wants to take it slow enough that it doesn't tear the country apart before he can retire.

 

SCOTUS needs to follow the Constitution:

INSURRECTION: Police erect higher security fencing at U.S. Supreme Court as protest crowds grow.

Inciting Violence

​

 

That wouldn't be an insurrection... the guys that tried to do a violent insurrection were idiots, but even they knew to go to Congress...

But, as my post made clear, improvements to security are needed.

 

Little evidence that they were doing anything other than vent their spleen.

 

Based on what was highlighted in bold, the leak was extremely bad, but not to the point it was an insurrection, treason, or whatever the modern conservative hyperbolic arguments are. Depending on who committed the act will depend on the course of action. If a law clerk, then that individual should be immediately terminated and have disciplinary action to disbarment. If not a clerk or someone who passed the bar, then that person should be immediately terminated. Since no personal identification information was provided publicly, I do not see any criminal charges being issued under 5 USC and its subsequent regulations.

Furthermore, I would expect the Supreme Court to take corrective action as well. This will include closer scrutiny of computer inputs, tougher screening processes for hiring law clerks, and maybe certain restrictions of newly hired law clerks whose computers do not and cannot have access to the internet. All research will now be done under a closed-loop system

 

What I don't expect is the leaks to the WSJ to stop. The radicals like those.

 

The leak of a Supreme Court document is, of course, an unusual and disturbing event. For a while it overshadows, in the press and the perception of the public, a deeper problem.

The Constitution of the United States of America does not suggest in any way that the Supreme Court should serve a specific political party or, for that matter, political parties in general. Yet, through a number of different means, that is what our two-party system is attempting to accomplish.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

 

The "reading of the tea leaves," aka leaks, will always occur whether it is the WSJ or WaPo or NYT. All three of these news organizations have people inside SCOTUS. We saw this from the WaPo when it reported that the Court will rule in favor of the Obama Administration in the lawsuit concerning the Affordable Care Act. When that happened, Mitch McConnell and other prominent Republicans wrote op-ed pieces trying to sway Chief Justice John Roberts to change his mind.

The point is, that those types of "leaks" are going to happen no matter what measures are put in place. And Chief Justice John Roberts is not going to place a gag order on the justices or the Court's employees to stop communicating with the press.

 

The court needs reform, the leaks are just one part of it. Law doesn't stop lawbreakers, but it does
discourage them.

 

Why does leaking the multiple conversation between two world leaders become the norm (well WAS the norm.)
and now leaking a SCOTUS draft becomes a problem?

 

So unusual that this is the first time it's ever happened. I imagine the leaker will be found, and I imagine the consequences will be harsh. I am going to chuckle, though, if it turns out that this draft opinion has been overridden by subsequent discussions and straw votes, and even more amused if it turns out this IS the final draft, and it passes 9-0.

I expect to overturn Roe, I imagine the Chief Justice will absolutely be looking for a unanimous vote on it.

All that said, I still think the final result will be to uphold Mississippi's law, which as I understand it only limits abortions to something like the first 24 weeks, but without overturning Roe. 24 weeks (or whatever the correct number is) is MORE than enough time to realize you're preggo and to make a decision to abort or not.

 

Hi, DentalFloss.

I've maintained elsewhere that we as a nation might be better served if all the energy and effort being channeled into ultimately ineffective palaver and protest was applied elsewhere. A good elsewhere might be a large educational effort to acquaint women with the availability, safety and efficacy of the abortion pill regimen and the importance of making use of it early in the pregnancy.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

 

That, and condoms, and pregnancy prevention pills, IUDs, under skin implants, and who knows what else they've come up with.

I'm a slut, and have had sex with hundreds, perhaps thousands of different women, and never once was a baby created. That was not just luck.

What's the "big 5"?

 

Hi again, DF.

Yup! That information, too.

The Big 5? Glad you asked. It's just the five things each of us can do to reduce the risk of spreading airborne bacterial and viral infections. They've been around for centuries, and remain valid today.

1. Wash hands frequently.
2. Wear a mask in public spaces.
3. Maintain physical separation in public spaces.
4. Get vaccinated if one is available.
5. Up-date information on the disease(s) from reputable sources.

Regards, best wishes to you and yours.

 

Yes, it does, but the bigger question is what type of reform. Biden issued a study on reform with various proposals ranging from increasing the number of supreme court justices to term limits to Constitutional amendments on judicial review and precedent. And that report concluded that no matter what option was chosen, it created more problems than it solved. It really boils down to the individual justice, and I think Chief Justice Roberts needs to create code of ethics within the Supreme Court because I don't think it would be adequate if Congress got involved.

 

But religious conservatives will want those things banned.

Second, why is it that only women are sluts. From a male point of view, it is considered an honor to have as many "conquered women" panties to hang from the college room, the locker talk about grabbing female parts such as what Trump locker room talk.

 

"For decades, SCOTUS has resisted adopting the bare minimum reforms necessary to implement and enforce ethics rules, confidentiality guarantees, and basic transparency necessary for maintaining and ensuring the public trust.

Good faith efforts to understand the court’s unique position in the constitutional structure and need for independence, such as the months-long commission on Supreme Court reform, came up with dozens of suggestions about fixes the court could institute tomorrow, from meaningful disclosure requirements to binding ethics obligations. Those straightforward recommendations— not around court packing or term limits or jurisdiction-stripping, but the hardening of norms that apply to other public officials—are then characterized as vicious attacks on the independence of the judicial branch by some of the very same conservatives screaming today about prosecuting the leaker to the fullest extent of the criminal law." (from the OP)

The Federalist Society doesn't want change, they like it this way. They might not like their pants being pulled down, but they do like the junkets to nice places paid for by the rich... etc.

 

The Federalist Society is actually the Anti-Federalist movement of the 1790s with certain exceptions. They are made up of only "conservative" lawyers, prosecutors, and politicians who want to minimize the Supreme Court and to put more power into the Executive and Legislative branches as long as the conservatives have control. Their beliefs include that only the first ten amendments should be the US Constitution, anyone can discriminate, quite literally and legally, to any group, especially, groups the conservatives despise which is pretty much everyone, and a few other things.

But the key to reform is on Chief Justice Roberts to get those codes of ethics in as quickly as possible.

 

That's what they say. But it's not at all what they do. They are part of the Right wing democracy killing power grab.

Up to the necks...

I doubt Roberts has an interest in reform that could actually work, but we will see.

 

And that is what the RW wants, including the "Federalist Society." They do not want SCOTUS to be powerful, they don't believe in checks and balances, etc. They are the most anti-Constitutional political group in this country.

 

Thank you, but I'm completely over the mask thing and if I hear the term "social distancing" one more time, I might just have a southern conniption fit. Especially considering the "authorities" came out and said if it's not an N95 or KN95 you may as well be wearing nothing, which is exactly what I plan to do. And though I am vaccinated, by my own choice, I am very opposed to mandatory vaxes. It's just not a power I think the government has or even should have.

 

Well, I couldn't care less what religious conservatives think, they're not banned now (thanks to previous SCOTUS decisions), they haven't been banned for decades, and they'll never be banned again. It would be like trying to ban internet porn, you could (hypothetically) pass all the laws you like, but I doubt they'd be Constitutional, and they wouldn't stop the availability of porn on the internet even if they were.

Some concerns are unworthy of spending brain cycles on because they're just not happening.

I never said such a thing, I said I am a slut, I'm proud of being a slut, and I'm a male. And while I can understand, to a degree, the concern of Trump's critics over the sorts of things he said, I also know from personal experience that doing such things, in certain environments, though always with at least implied consent, is not always inappropriate. Now, I'm not talking about walking around the mall, or at work (unless your job is porn, I suppose), I'm talking about times and places where sexually adventurous people gather together for the purpose of grabbing stranger's junk, and having their own junk grabbed by strangers. But I cannot say if Trump was referring to those sorts of occasions or not, but it's something that nobody even bothered looking into. Rich and famous men (and women) can and do participate in some interesting "hobbies", if you will, and because they're rich and famous, they can find themselves the center of attention for a lot of things.

I guess I'm beating around the bush to an extent so as to not offend those with thin skin, but I think you can pick up what I'm laying down.

 

The culprit who leaked the draft is toast. Just a matter of time. What a bone-headed thing they did.