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

91–100 of 108 posts

Re: US Supreme Court releases leak investigation report

#91

Post by AnimalMuppet »

jaybrendansmith wrote: post #90
dvt wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Justice…

[flagged]

You don't think Roe itself was at least as bad on all the grounds you name?

Re: US Supreme Court releases leak investigation report

#92

Post by Alupis »

yamtaddle wrote: post #89
Alupis wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Federalist papers were political opinions - not law, and certainly not the Constitution. They provide insight to what some of the founders may have thought - but then there is reality which is what we have now. Your entire point seems to be, some people broke the law and got away with it, therefore SCOTUS is now just a thing we sometimes pay attention to when it's convenient. That is simply not reality. It's popu…

> They provide insight to what some of the founders may have thought - but then there is reality which is what we have now. The reality we have now is that the court has never functioned the way high school civics treatments of US government describe it. Its credibility is very important to its continued power and to our avoiding constitutional crises, which means that the popularity of its decisions and the percepti…

> Its credibility is very important to its continued power and to our avoiding constitutional crises

This is the point of contention. It's a modern concept, when some folks of a particular political leaning didn't get their way. Suddenly, practically overnight, SCOTUS is a politically motivated organization that must keep up with popular opinions or risk "losing power". Otherwise, they're branded as evil-doers and worse...

This is simply not how our government works (thankfully).

If it did, people would have ignored Congress and the Office of the President long ago... and we would no longer have a functioning federal government, or a country for the matter.

The idea that the Judicial Branch is beholden to popular opinion and must maintain "credibility" is something that happens to unstable governments in far away parts of the world. This is not how our system works, again... thankfully.

Just because the judicial branch moves slowly and doesn't play petty politics does not mean they are not effective. Credibility has literally nothing to do with this system - it was designed that way on purpose.

Re: US Supreme Court releases leak investigation report

#93

Post by kube-system »

irrational wrote: post #74
kube-system wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I understand, i’m saying I don’t think it’s reasonable to make that jump.

The process has design features to specifically allow it to function even when run by corrupt people. That was the entire point, since the beginning.

Re: US Supreme Court releases leak investigation report

#94

Post by anigbrowl »

Alupis wrote: post #84
yamtaddle wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This perspective is utterly perplexing to me. The very reasoning behind allowing something as terrifying as a supreme court to exist was that its power comes entirely from the consent of the people and the other two branches. They 100% can be ignored. The executive and legislative simply don't do what they say, and poof, they're ignored. This isn't theoretical—one of their first major decisions, Marbury v Madison, wa…

It seems you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US federal government operates. Congress can make a new law, or ratify a Constitutional amendment. That is the only way to "ignore" a SCOTUS decision. (although that is not ignoring, that is literally how the legal process works) The President can commit a crime and do Unconstitutional things - for which they can be removed from office (Impeachment & Removal…

I think you need to temper your idealism with some realism. Consider, for example, that 'qualified immunity' originates as a pragmatic legal doctrine rather than in statute or executive order. It is a creation of courts, notwithstanding the resultant tension with the Constitution itself (see eg Vega v. Tekoh, the most recent case in the linked summary).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity

Re: US Supreme Court releases leak investigation report

#95

Post by Alupis »

anigbrowl wrote: post #94
Alupis wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US federal government operates. Congress can make a new law, or ratify a Constitutional amendment. That is the only way to "ignore" a SCOTUS decision. (although that is not ignoring, that is literally how the legal process works) The President can commit a crime and do Unconstitutional things - for which they can be removed from office (Impeachment & Removal…

I think you need to temper your idealism with some realism. Consider, for example, that 'qualified immunity' originates as a pragmatic legal doctrine rather than in statute or executive order. It is a creation of courts, notwithstanding the resultant tension with the Constitution itself (see eg Vega v. Tekoh, the most recent case in the linked summary). https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity

From your linked article:

    Specifically, qualified immunity protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff's rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right.
Literally everything in this article cites the Constitutionality of every presented case that built modern Qualified Immunity. In all cases, a government official is not allowed to violate your actual rights, ie. the ones provided by the Constitution or ones codified into law by Congress.

That is how the system is supposed to work.

I don't see the point you are trying to make, however.

Re: US Supreme Court releases leak investigation report

#96

Post by PuppyTailWags »

Alupis wrote: post #77
PuppyTailWags wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ri…

Here's the thing though, both of these cases have no reason to be brought to SCOTUS because it fails to show aggrieved party or harm done. In the NY case, the law itself was already moot, and therefore the case should've been dismissed. In the EPA case, there was could be no harm done, because no regulation had passed. By this logic I should have a legal right to sue anyone due to a potential violation of any civil liberty without first proving any actual violation whatsoever... which is clearly nonsense.

SCOTUS took up both these cases for clearly political reasons as opposed to good law.

Re: US Supreme Court releases leak investigation report

#97

Post by yamtaddle »

Alupis wrote: post #92
yamtaddle wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They provide insight to what some of the founders may have thought - but then there is reality which is what we have now. The reality we have now is that the court has never functioned the way high school civics treatments of US government describe it. Its credibility is very important to its continued power and to our avoiding constitutional crises, which means that the popularity of its decisions and the percepti…

> Its credibility is very important to its continued power and to our avoiding constitutional crises This is the point of contention. It's a modern concept, when some folks of a particular political leaning didn't get their way. Suddenly, practically overnight, SCOTUS is a politically motivated organization that must keep up with popular opinions or risk "losing power". Otherwise, they're branded as evil-doers and wo…

> It's a modern concept, when some folks of a particular political leaning didn't get their way.

I've repeatedly pointed out that it's not, at all. It's been a feature of our political system from the beginning. The ideal is that it's not, but that's never actually been true. It's something that's been known as a feature of this particular arrangement of government since before the Constitution itself was written—when it was still in the planning phase.

> Credibility has literally nothing to do with this system

You keep using "literally" and it keeps making your points worse because they're literally wrong, while they might have merit as an aspiration, at least.

> Just because the judicial branch moves slowly and doesn't play petty politics does not mean they are not effective.

Like... they totally do play petty politics. Again, read any history of the court, it'll be pretty clear that they always have. It'd be kinda weird if they didn't, when you think about it. It's just a bunch of people, after all, as was (again) repeatedly pointed out by various founders.

Re: US Supreme Court releases leak investigation report

#98

Post by anigbrowl »

Alupis wrote: post #95
anigbrowl wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you need to temper your idealism with some realism. Consider, for example, that 'qualified immunity' originates as a pragmatic legal doctrine rather than in statute or executive order. It is a creation of courts, notwithstanding the resultant tension with the Constitution itself (see eg Vega v. Tekoh, the most recent case in the linked summary). https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity

From your linked article: Specifically, qualified immunity protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff's rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right. Literally everything in this article cites the Constitutionality of every presented case that built modern Qualified Immunity. In all cases, a government…

Go read some actual cases and see just how much behavior is excused under the rubric of QI, where a petitioner's only recourse ends up being the offending agency investigating and endorsing the actions of its own employee. I find it hard to believe that you are totally unaware of how this doctrine gets abused or the questions of scope creep, and that was just one example. IF you study law and jurisprudence, it quickly becomes obvious that it is not the process of pure disinterested rationality you seem to imagine.

Re: US Supreme Court releases leak investigation report

#99

Post by fmajid »

saboot wrote: post #81
LarryMullins wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That certainly makes a lot more sense than the "leaked as a distraction against.... unspecified" theory.

I left it unspecified as I thought it was obvious it was to distract from allowing states to make it a crime to terminate a pregnancy in all cases.

If Alito was indeed the leaker, that is an outcome he would cheer for, not one he would try to prevent.

Re: US Supreme Court releases leak investigation report

#100

Post by pcaharrier »

dvt wrote: post #79
LiquidSky wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Justice…

In addition to Alito having no certainty about how Roberts would vote in the end, it turned out to be the case that Roberts didn't vote to overturn Roe at all (much like more than a few, well-informed Court observers guessed that he would). If Roberts was the "target" of the leak it was definitely a "reckless gamble."
Post reply on HN