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

US Supreme Court releases leak investigation report

supremecourt.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 108 posts

Re: US Supreme Court releases leak investigation report

#71

Post by PuppyTailWags »

floxy wrote: post #23
cuuupid wrote: post #13

At least this is an improvement from the “hacker known as 4chan” days. I’m a bit confused by this report though, did they do forensic analysis on the devices of all employees who would’ve had access or only some and rely on interviews for the rest? I imagine if someone leaked it they probably wouldn’t immediately admit to it just when asked.

>I imagine if someone leaked it they probably wouldn’t immediately admit to it just when asked. "At the conclusion of the initial interviews, each employee was asked to sign an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, affirming that he or she did not disclose the Dobbs draft opinion to any person not employed by the Supreme Court, did not disclose to any person not employed by the Supreme Court any information relating t…

One of the things that confuses me is that the Justices and the employees are categorizes as two different entities i.e. saying something akin to the people with access are 82 employees and the Justices. But then all the investigation only says the employees. Does that mean all the justices weren't given the same scrutiny?

Re: US Supreme Court releases leak investigation report

#72

Post by ceejayoz »

_-david-_ wrote: post #65
ceejayoz wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The big picture: Rev. Rob Schenck, a former anti-abortion leader, previously told the New York Times that he learned of court's 2014 decision on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby weeks in advance, prompting a review from the Senate Judiciary Committee. That's evidence. Testimony is evidence.

An accusation is not proof and to top it off, doesn't prove it was Alito.

Agreed. There is evidence. There is not proof.

Re: US Supreme Court releases leak investigation report

#73

Post by ceejayoz »

readthenotes1 wrote: post #53
saboot wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because he's done it before https://www.axios.com/2022/11/29/supreme-court-alito-ethics-...

Your article states that one person says he did and two people say he did not. The guy who claimed it is a known liar. https://www.theepochtimes.com/reverend-who-accused-supreme-c...

While we're worrying about that, the Epoch Times are similarly known liars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times

Re: US Supreme Court releases leak investigation report

#74

Post by irrational »

kube-system wrote: post #52
irrational wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, it mainly undermined my trust in the Supreme Court. I’d already lost trust in congress and the presidency. Now I have lost trust in all three branches of government. Complete corruption across the board.

Power didn't start corrupting people yesterday. That sentiment is pretty much the entire reason why the US government was designed to have three branches that checks and balance each other. You don't need to trust anyone in particular if you can trust the process.

Well, I no longer trust the process. That was the basic meaning behind everyone is corrupt.

Re: US Supreme Court releases leak investigation report

#75

Post by PuppyTailWags »

Alupis wrote: post #45
matthewdgreen wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s the duty of the court to maintain the public’s trust in the institution: without that trust the law doesn’t matter very much. This court has not been doing that very well, as evidenced by sharp changes in the opinion polling. This leak, evidence that justices are sharing unpublished opinions with interested parties, and the current weak-tea investigation are only part of the problem. But they’re big problems.

The SCOTUS is not supposed to be swayed by public opinion. The only thing that is supposed to matter is the Constitution itself, and any amendments Congress has ratified along with case law, etc. ie. if you are upset by something SCOTUS didn't agree with you on - be mad at your Congresscritter - they are the only ones with the power to change the Constitution and law. However, there has been a growing push among some…

> The erosion of public trust in the institution that is the SCOTUS is based purely on populism movements of late. Without going into specifics - the particular issues that are said to be causing this alleged erosion of trust are simply not Constitutional issues.

WDYM? Is the SCOTUS hearing that new york gun law case, when the gun law itself was annulled anyways so the case is basically moot, not an issue? Or SCOTUS hearing the precursor case of limiting EPA regulation before the EPA has regulated anything? Or SCOTUS's multiple really significant decisions passed through the shadow docket, aka no reasoning provided?

This doesn't seem like people being mad because populationist reasoning. It reads like people being mad because SCOTUS is acting spuriously and is deviating from established law theory but there are no ways to hold them to account for doing so.

Re: US Supreme Court releases leak investigation report

#76

Post by yamtaddle »

Alupis wrote: post #45
matthewdgreen wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s the duty of the court to maintain the public’s trust in the institution: without that trust the law doesn’t matter very much. This court has not been doing that very well, as evidenced by sharp changes in the opinion polling. This leak, evidence that justices are sharing unpublished opinions with interested parties, and the current weak-tea investigation are only part of the problem. But they’re big problems.

The SCOTUS is not supposed to be swayed by public opinion. The only thing that is supposed to matter is the Constitution itself, and any amendments Congress has ratified along with case law, etc. ie. if you are upset by something SCOTUS didn't agree with you on - be mad at your Congresscritter - they are the only ones with the power to change the Constitution and law. However, there has been a growing push among some…

The court's been political, has been meddled with in political ways, and has had multiple important people—including signers of the constitution—point out that if they get too wacky we can and should just ignore them, for basically the entire history of the country.

Re: US Supreme Court releases leak investigation report

#77

Post by Alupis »

PuppyTailWags wrote: post #75
Alupis wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SCOTUS is not supposed to be swayed by public opinion. The only thing that is supposed to matter is the Constitution itself, and any amendments Congress has ratified along with case law, etc. ie. if you are upset by something SCOTUS didn't agree with you on - be mad at your Congresscritter - they are the only ones with the power to change the Constitution and law. However, there has been a growing push among some…

> The erosion of public trust in the institution that is the SCOTUS is based purely on populism movements of late. Without going into specifics - the particular issues that are said to be causing this alleged erosion of trust are simply not Constitutional issues. WDYM? Is the SCOTUS hearing that new york gun law case, when the gun law itself was annulled anyways so the case is basically moot, not an issue? Or SCOTUS…

Even if a particular law has been annulled out of fear of a SCOTUS decision - that does not mean SCOTUS should not take up the case. After all, people were harmed by the law, and the law possibly was never Constitutional in the first place.

We cannot have a system where a Federal, State or Local government passes Unconstitutional laws on purpose, oppresses a population and only repeals the law when there's a real risk of a SCOTUS decision.

States like NY and CA have a history of repealing & replacing laws (with similar but slightly different laws) just to keep SCOTUS out of things (one cannot just take a case directly to SCOTUS after all).

The EPA case was whether or not government agencies and departments have the power to make up and enforce regulations on their own. The Constitution only provides Congress with the ability to create new laws and regulations, which is why this case reached SCOTUS.

The EPA was not a target, although they were the vehicle for that case. The decision from SCOTUS provides guidance to all lower courts in the nation. The importance here, is a lower court can short-circuit a complaint based off this guidance from SCOTUS. So next time some random government agency makes up a new law and tries to enforce it - a lower court can stop it quickly instead of a case having to make its way up to SCOTUS again (because that court can reference the decision and say this is Unconstitutional - getting a case in front of SCOTUS can take years or longer).

These are exactly the types of cases SCOTUS is supposed to take, rule, and provide guidance for all of the other courts in the nation.

Populism is exactly the reason people are upset with both. "Guns are bad" and "EPA is good" are emotional, populist arguments that count on people's misunderstanding or ignorance of how government, the Constitution, law and SCOTUS are supposed to operate.

Re: US Supreme Court releases leak investigation report

#78

Post by Alupis »

yamtaddle wrote: post #76
Alupis wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SCOTUS is not supposed to be swayed by public opinion. The only thing that is supposed to matter is the Constitution itself, and any amendments Congress has ratified along with case law, etc. ie. if you are upset by something SCOTUS didn't agree with you on - be mad at your Congresscritter - they are the only ones with the power to change the Constitution and law. However, there has been a growing push among some…

The court's been political, has been meddled with in political ways, and has had multiple important people—including signers of the constitution—point out that if they get too wacky we can and should just ignore them, for basically the entire history of the country.

> including signers of the constitution—point out that if they get too wacky we can and should just ignore them

Completely untrue.

Not only is SCOTUS the head of one of three branches of our federal government and cannot be ignored (whatever that means) - there is an Impeachment & Removal mechanism in place for when a particular Justice does not uphold their duties.

However, not agreeing with you on some issue is certainly not a failure to uphold their duties.

Re: US Supreme Court releases leak investigation report

#79

Post by dvt »

LiquidSky wrote: post #58
Georgelemental wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The leaker was most likely a clerk or other lesser official, not a justice.

Nah, the leaker was most likely Alito, who is on record as having done something like this before. He did it to keep Roberts's vote secure by publicly forcing the issue so he couldn't waver. That's why this report refuses to reach any conclusions, and why after initially thundering about the leak Roberts has been veeeeeeery quiet about this investigation.

This is partisan nonsense for a few reasons, but mainly because...

> He did it to keep Roberts's vote secure

He had no idea how Roberts would eventually vote. Robert's been very much a wild-card, so this would be quite the reckless gamble. Further, generally speaking, SCOTUS doesn't really have much stake in politics, so I also very much doubt it was a Justice that leaked it. The public overestimates how much Justices actually care about the issues themselves; they mostly care about their Constitutionality (and philosophical implications therein).

I do think they actually know who leaked it, but naming and shaming would just lead to a lynch mob, political theater, and further erode trust in SCOTUS.

Re: US Supreme Court releases leak investigation report

#80

Post by yamtaddle »

Alupis wrote: post #78
yamtaddle wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The court's been political, has been meddled with in political ways, and has had multiple important people—including signers of the constitution—point out that if they get too wacky we can and should just ignore them, for basically the entire history of the country.

> including signers of the constitution—point out that if they get too wacky we can and should just ignore them Completely untrue. Not only is SCOTUS the head of one of three branches of our federal government and cannot be ignored (whatever that means) - there is an Impeachment & Removal mechanism in place for when a particular Justice does not uphold their duties. However, not agreeing with you on some issue is cer…

You write about application of the a law. I write about attitudes, observations, and actual history.
Post reply on HN