US Supreme Court releases leak investigation report • Hacker News Board

Re: US Supreme Court releases leak investigation report

#101

Post by Alupis » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 6:17 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #98

Alupis wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 quickl…

This is an odd take. QI can only expand as far as the courts allow it - because you can challenge it in court (and it is challenged often).

QI allows government employees to do a lot of things - except violate your real rights (provided by the Constitution and/or laws passed by Congress).

If you do not like how QI has developed over the years - then it will require either A) Congressional Law or B) SCOTUS decision to change it.

None of this has anything to do with what this thread was about.

Just because you are unhappy with some legal tool, doesn't mean SCOTUS is derelict or something. That's just absurd... and demonstrates a lack of understanding of both our judicial and legislative systems.

Re: US Supreme Court releases leak investigation report

#102

Post by LarryMullins » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 7:56 PM UTC

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.

That doesn't make any sense, both are about abortion. Getting people to talk and think about one will naturally draw attention to the other.

Re: US Supreme Court releases leak investigation report

#103

Post by fsckboy » Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 4:03 AM UTC

Aloha wrote: post #29

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-...

I'm in broad agreement with you, Alito more than likely leaked it himself, which is why no leaker will be found, the justices are above scrutiny. Absent finding another person who we can prove did it, I'll hold on to that idea.

it's fine that you have the opinion you do, but to say there is a likelihood from zero evidence is a bit silly.

Re: US Supreme Court releases leak investigation report

#104

Post by fsckboy » Sat, Jan 21, 2023, 4:05 AM UTC

fmajid wrote: post #37

Aloha wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in broad agreement with you, Alito more than likely leaked it himself, which is why no leaker will be found, the justices are above scrutiny. Absent finding another person who we can prove did it, I'll hold on to that idea.

It was to prevent Roberts or Kavanaugh from getting cold feet.

> It was to prevent Roberts or Kavanaugh from getting cold feet.

why wouldn't it embolden them to prove the leaker wrong, making the wage of their sin irrelevance? It's just not a strong case. It's as least as likely it leaked from the left to create a political firestorm. We don't know.

Re: US Supreme Court releases leak investigation report

#105

Post by pattisapu » Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 7:58 PM UTC

rgbrenner wrote: post #47

pattisapu wrote: post #30

When I clerked for a judge (not on the Supreme Court), she sometimes asked me to write two draft opinions -- one where one side wins -- and another where the other side wins -- and she used those materials in drafting her ultimate opinion. There are so many different things going on in how judges write. I hope that they can get some _sense_ of security again so that they feel the freedom to be as open-minded as possi…

That part of their deliberations already occurred... the leak was after the majority of the justices voted to approve the draft. That's why the final opinion matched so closely to the leaked version.

Oh of course -- I just meant that I can envision a scenario where a judge is essentially writing out a thought-experiment as he or she is trying to figure out how to rule on a case -- and then that is leaked, etc.

Even if it's a late-stage draft that's leaked, that comes with its own host of problems.

Imagine a world where drafts are trotted out by lawyers seeking to argue their interpretation of an old opinion. "The Court originally was going to hold something like my opponent suggests, but that bit got deleted, your honor!"

That would be another level of the problem of what we might call "arguing the changelog," using pieces of floor debate transcripts in the legislative history of a statute.

Justice Scalia analogized that to "entering a crowded room at a cocktail party, and looking over the heads of the guests for your friends."

And that's a concern on top of the potential for a chilling effect on the judiciary.

Re: US Supreme Court releases leak investigation report

#106

Post by pattisapu » Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 8:06 PM UTC

LiquidSky wrote: post #61

pattisapu wrote: post #30

When I clerked for a judge (not on the Supreme Court), she sometimes asked me to write two draft opinions -- one where one side wins -- and another where the other side wins -- and she used those materials in drafting her ultimate opinion. There are so many different things going on in how judges write. I hope that they can get some _sense_ of security again so that they feel the freedom to be as open-minded as possi…

>I hope that they can get some _sense_ of security again so that they feel the freedom to be as open-minded as possible in figuring out the cases before them. This presumes that the leaker wasn't one of the Justices themselves, when it almost certainly was.

Sorry if this is a dumb question -- but what would be the motive for a sitting justice to leak a draft?

To test what celebrations or outrage would happen in the streets, maybe?

If they are that concerned with public opinion -- which they shouldn't be, but say they are -- I would think that would incentivize even stronger efforts to maintain confidentiality and discretion.

(Maybe you didn't suggest that it was intentional, but an accident. Even then I might wonder why someone would let their guard down on this case. Maybe there was so much more work done on one particular case, people get physically tired, etc.)

Re: US Supreme Court releases leak investigation report

#107

Post by pattisapu » Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 8:17 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #62

rgbrenner wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That part of their deliberations already occurred... the leak was after the majority of the justices voted to approve the draft. That's why the final opinion matched so closely to the leaked version.

We have no idea what would’ve happened in a counter-factual scenario. The draft opinion is the first time the whole court sees the reasoning on paper. Even if the narrow holding doesn’t change, the reasoning used and the sweep of the rule articulated can and does change.

And there is value in that being the first time the whole Court sees it.

Cards on the table at one definite time.

How much the author had to sweat to get there, to the extent it may matter at all, should show up in the results--a ruling written with a measured, judicial temperament.

Re: US Supreme Court releases leak investigation report

#108

Post by pseudalopex » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 6:37 AM UTC

pattisapu wrote: post #106

LiquidSky wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I hope that they can get some _sense_ of security again so that they feel the freedom to be as open-minded as possible in figuring out the cases before them. This presumes that the leaker wasn't one of the Justices themselves, when it almost certainly was.

Sorry if this is a dumb question -- but what would be the motive for a sitting justice to leak a draft? To test what celebrations or outrage would happen in the streets, maybe? If they are that concerned with public opinion -- which they shouldn't be, but say they are -- I would think that would incentivize even stronger efforts to maintain confidentiality and discretion. (Maybe you didn't suggest that it was intenti…

Judges don't want people to believe public opinion can change decisions. Leaking a draft discourages judges from changing their votes or negotiating other changes.