Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 358 posts

Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare

#11

Post by showerst »

magpi3 wrote: post #4
rayiner wrote: post #3

This sort of leak, likely from a law clerk given that it was a draft opinion, is not a good development. Nobody has any loyalty to their institutions anymore. Every institutional loyalty has been subjected to team red or team blue.

Don't you think it was for money? A law clerk would be risking their entire career for this, and I can't imagine they would do that just to get the news out early. I wonder if politico will acknowledge whether or not they paid for the leak.

I’m doubtful of that; politico lives and dies on having friends in government willing to break things (whether by leaks or just telling their reporters public facts first). Looking like a tabloid has only downside for politico — either people will start to want money for scoops, or they’ll get cut off.

Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare

#13

Post by maxerickson »

refurb wrote: post #5
rayiner wrote: post #3

This sort of leak, likely from a law clerk given that it was a draft opinion, is not a good development. Nobody has any loyalty to their institutions anymore. Every institutional loyalty has been subjected to team red or team blue.

This is the bigger problem. There is a process and some people seem to think circumventing it is the right response. The courts will make a decision and then it's up to Congress to draft new laws if it wants. Undermining the process of the judicial branch is not going to end well at all.

The leak could have been done by someone who favors the draft.

Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare

#14

Post by fundad »

jimmygrapes wrote: post #6
magpi3 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you think it was for money? A law clerk would be risking their entire career for this, and I can't imagine they would do that just to get the news out early. I wonder if politico will acknowledge whether or not they paid for the leak.

I'd venture it was deemed "worth it" just like the absurd amount of leaks just after Jan 20, 2017. In this case, it's possible that an intentional leak of a draft is aimed to encourage politicians and activists alike to ~~threaten~~encourage various Justices to change their minds before the final decision, ala ACA/Roberts

This could just as likely to be to distract from something petty but embarrassing about to drop.

Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare

#15

Post by ceejayoz »

jimmygrapes wrote: post #6
magpi3 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you think it was for money? A law clerk would be risking their entire career for this, and I can't imagine they would do that just to get the news out early. I wonder if politico will acknowledge whether or not they paid for the leak.

I'd venture it was deemed "worth it" just like the absurd amount of leaks just after Jan 20, 2017. In this case, it's possible that an intentional leak of a draft is aimed to encourage politicians and activists alike to ~~threaten~~encourage various Justices to change their minds before the final decision, ala ACA/Roberts

> There's a third possibility, which might be most plausible: Roberts is doing his institutionalist best to court Kavanaugh and/or Barrett away from a full overrule of Roe and someone wants to deter that defection by documenting that they both initially voted to end it.

https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1521298950011207680

Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare

#16

Post by kadoban »

refurb wrote: post #5
rayiner wrote: post #3

This sort of leak, likely from a law clerk given that it was a draft opinion, is not a good development. Nobody has any loyalty to their institutions anymore. Every institutional loyalty has been subjected to team red or team blue.

This is the bigger problem. There is a process and some people seem to think circumventing it is the right response. The courts will make a decision and then it's up to Congress to draft new laws if it wants. Undermining the process of the judicial branch is not going to end well at all.

The judicial branch already disregarded the process. See the current court's use of the shadow docket, and hell, _this decision_ itself.

Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare

#17

Post by fundad »

theoldlove wrote: post #10
magpi3 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you think it was for money? A law clerk would be risking their entire career for this, and I can't imagine they would do that just to get the news out early. I wonder if politico will acknowledge whether or not they paid for the leak.

No one does anything relating to Roe purely for the money. Whatever the reason for this leak, it was (at least in part) motivated by principle.

No post body was provided.

Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare

#18

Post by elliekelly »

magpi3 wrote: post #4
rayiner wrote: post #3

This sort of leak, likely from a law clerk given that it was a draft opinion, is not a good development. Nobody has any loyalty to their institutions anymore. Every institutional loyalty has been subjected to team red or team blue.

Don't you think it was for money? A law clerk would be risking their entire career for this, and I can't imagine they would do that just to get the news out early. I wonder if politico will acknowledge whether or not they paid for the leak.

It could also have been leaked by a sitting Justice in which case the source would have risked nothing at all.

Re: How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare

#19

Post by refurb »

kadoban wrote: post #16
refurb wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the bigger problem. There is a process and some people seem to think circumventing it is the right response. The courts will make a decision and then it's up to Congress to draft new laws if it wants. Undermining the process of the judicial branch is not going to end well at all.

The judicial branch already disregarded the process. See the current court's use of the shadow docket, and hell, _this decision_ itself.

This decision is disregarding what process? This is the power vested in the Supreme Court.

Edit: No, no law is “settled” and impossible to overturn. The comment said “casually overturned”, not “never overturned”.

It’s how it’s supposed to work

You don’t get to pick and choose what decisions you like and then attack the ones you don’t. If you do you undermine the decisions you don’t agree with AND the ones you do.”

And again, there is nothing stopping Congress from turning around and passing a new abortion law that maintains the status quo.

It may not be perfect but if you don’t respect the process then you might as well throw the whole system out the window.

Post reply on HN