Looking at this 'leak business' a little differently..

[btthegreat]

Just thinking out loud here. What if we just admitted that SCOTUS was really just another political and partisan institution. We can't stop it and shaking our fists does not seem to work terribly well. Well in that case, then what we need is a lot more transparency. We should see how that sausage gets made so we can add our voices, can work to influence the result. . What if instead of secrecy around those early drafts, that were circulated for signatures, they were posted on a website and the newer suggested language was also signed and dated by each justice suggesting change . Now it works more like proposed amendments to a bill sitting in committee. And those are not particularly secret affairs. They happen in open committee hearings with up and down votes which are tallied and recorded for posterity. Why not have 'work sessions' and public comment sessions both in public and a broader array of testimony than just the oral arguments by two sets of counsel? All those amicus briefs, that represent the opinions of some very heady views too. Why are they not sitting, waiting a turn to give very public testimony? Why not treat the justices as we would a congressional committee and demand more transparency, and more input all through that process, rather than having to stand outside after the decision and cry about our impotence.

 

[Mr Person]

<> We should see how that sausage gets made so we can add our voices, can work to influence the result. . What if instead of secrecy around those early drafts, that were circulated for signatures, they were posted on a website and the newer suggested language was also signed and dated by each justice suggesting change . <>

Well, first off we know generally how judicial decisionmaking is made because we can speak to lawyers, law clerks, and judges about it, and of all sorts. Unless the Supreme Court is radically different, we know enough about what happens. And why would it be? The appointees are usually judges, at least.

And if it's horribly corrupt, why wouldn't the liberal members speak out? Are they in on it to?

Now, there may be a few tidbits of exception. Shadow Docket. How do those decisions get made? Different procedure? I'm sure people can come up with examples.



I can't really see a pragmatic end to the proposition. What might be discovered (other than rank explicit corruption) that would allow the public to adapt in a meaningful way and accomplish some change that might be wanted? You're basically talking about the specific way conferences, draft circulation, and the like works. I don't see how that sheds light on anything for the public. To attorneys, perhaps. Depends exactly what we're talking about.

The problem isn't so much secrecy, but the reasons politicians now appoint justices: because they like their decisionmaking history and bet it will continue in that path.

And wouldn't you know it, but the GOP likes to appoint justices and judges churned out by the Federalist Society, that group that has groomed lawyers into judges into justices for decades, with the purpose of advancing conservative causes (most notably, abortion). I'd bet that means they're more likely to continue in their same path than someone who did not really participate.



tl;dr I'd find it interesting to hear all the details, but I do not think it would address the core problems people have with the Court's make-up and operation.

 

[btthegreat]

Well, first off we know generally how judicial decisionmaking is made because we can speak to lawyers, law clerks, and judges about it, and of all sorts. Unless the Supreme Court is radically different, we know enough about what happens. And why would it be? The appointees are usually judges, at least.

And if it's horribly corrupt, why wouldn't the liberal members speak out? Are they in on it to?

Now, there may be a few tidbits of exception. Shadow Docket. How do those decisions get made? Different procedure? I'm sure people can come up with examples.



I can't really see a pragmatic end to the proposition. What might be discovered (other than rank explicit corruption) that would allow the public to adapt in a meaningful way and accomplish some change that might be wanted? You're basically talking about the specific way conferences, draft circulation, and the like works. I don't see how that sheds light on anything for the public. To attorneys, perhaps. Depends exactly what we're talking about.

The problem isn't so much secrecy, but the reasons politicians now appoint justices: because they like their decisionmaking history and bet it will continue in that path.

And wouldn't you know it, but the GOP likes to appoint justices and judges churned out by the Federalist Society, that group that has groomed lawyers into judges into justices for decades, with the purpose of advancing conservative causes (most notably, abortion). I'd bet that means they're more likely to continue in their same path than someone who did not really participate.



tl;dr I'd find it interesting to hear all the details, but I do not think it would address the core problems people have with the Court's make-up and operation.

It works now more like Congress did before open meeting laws and committees that that changed the presumption of access with journalistic coverage over the sausage making etc as the norm, and require a special process for a closed meeting. We did not trust the fact that 'legislators' knew what happened in legislative halls so I don't see why we should take comfort from lawyers telling us how this court functions.

I think that the idea here , is for the public and groups to actually be able to put at least some political pressure on these justices, demand more access, and input, rather than insulate the court from politics, now that insulation against 'politics is now made of tissue paper anyway.


Presently We have the politics in those chambers, just nothing else!

 

[Rawley]

Just thinking out loud here. What if we just admitted that SCOTUS was really just another political and partisan institution. We can't stop it and shaking our fists does not seem to work terribly well. Well in that case, then what we need is a lot more transparency. We should see how that sausage gets made so we can add our voices, can work to influence the result. . What if instead of secrecy around those early drafts, that were circulated for signatures, they were posted on a website and the newer suggested language was also signed and dated by each justice suggesting change . Now it works more like proposed amendments to a bill sitting in committee. And those are not particularly secret affairs. They happen in open committee hearings with up and down votes which are tallied and recorded for posterity. Why not have 'work sessions' and public comment sessions both in public and a broader array of testimony than just the oral arguments by two sets of counsel? All those amicus briefs, that represent the opinions of some very heady views too. Why are they not sitting, waiting a turn to give very public testimony? Why not treat the justices as we would a congressional committee and demand more transparency, and more input all through that process, rather than having to stand outside after the decision and cry about our impotence.

Hmmmmm .... interesting. As you clearly know, by the time a particular case gets to the SC, it's been through at least two other courts - trial and appellate. And each case they choose to hear is typically representative of several other cases (they rarely take one offs). So, by the time the Justices hear the case, they have had the input of several hundred, if not thousands of lawyers.

Not sure what the general public could add to the process.

 

[Mr Person]

It works now more like Congress did before open meeting laws and committees that that changed the presumption of access with journalistic coverage over the sausage making etc as the norm, and require a special process for a closed meeting. We did not trust the fact that 'legislators' knew what happened in legislative halls so I don't see why we should take comfort from lawyers telling us how this court functions.

I think that the idea here , is for the public and groups to actually be able to put at least some political pressure on these justices, demand more access, and input, rather than insulate the court from politics, now that insulation against 'politics is now made of tissue paper anyway.


Presently We have the politics in those chambers, just nothing else!

I.....really don't want lobbyists (original phrasing) or "the public and groups" to put more political pressure on the justices. I don't see the problem as that they resist political pressure, and if they did it would equally apply. The problem is the lopsidedness, and The Federalist Society's influence.

Well, and politics. Do you think for one second that the GOP - if it could - wouldn't put a justice on the court that says "I WILL overturn X,Y,Z"? I don't. The problem is not even how justices are picked. They can't not be picked that way unless you want to attempt to do it with "AI", itself fraught with issues.

The problem ultimately is the people. The people who don't give any shits and vote for people who will appoint people who have been set on overturning Roe/etc from the outset. Too many of the people who don't care enough to vote the way that matters most in the long run: SCOTUS appointments. Too many of the peopledrool at cable infotainment. They speak in bumper stickers on Twitter and their cars. Even here on a debate site, it is mostly bumper stickers.

Too many. And that's the problem I see most clearly here. Power for power's sake. (I mean, The Federalist Society could be called "a problem" but there's the 1st Amd).





So people did things like ignore the GOP's war on Roe, sitting home or third party voting specifically because they didn't like Hillary, etc. It matters. This is where we land. Maybe.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Well, first off we know generally how judicial decisionmaking is made because we can speak to lawyers, law clerks, and judges about it, and of all sorts. Unless the Supreme Court is radically different, we know enough about what happens. And why would it be? The appointees are usually judges, at least.

And if it's horribly corrupt, why wouldn't the liberal members speak out? Are they in on it to?

Now, there may be a few tidbits of exception. Shadow Docket. How do those decisions get made? Different procedure? I'm sure people can come up with examples.



I can't really see a pragmatic end to the proposition. What might be discovered (other than rank explicit corruption) that would allow the public to adapt in a meaningful way and accomplish some change that might be wanted? You're basically talking about the specific way conferences, draft circulation, and the like works. I don't see how that sheds light on anything for the public. To attorneys, perhaps. Depends exactly what we're talking about.

The problem isn't so much secrecy, but the reasons politicians now appoint justices: because they like their decisionmaking history and bet it will continue in that path.

And wouldn't you know it, but the GOP likes to appoint justices and judges churned out by the Federalist Society, that group that has groomed lawyers into judges into justices for decades, with the purpose of advancing conservative causes (most notably, abortion). I'd bet that means they're more likely to continue in their same path than someone who did not really participate.



tl;dr I'd find it interesting to hear all the details, but I do not think it would address the core problems people have with the Court's make-up and operation.

Self dealing...the entire joint reeks of it. If you don't play the game, you don't get to sit in the Great Chamber and pick up the paycheck.
And as regards the leak, I find the hue and cry about catching and punishing the leaker fascinating.

About those fifteen boxes of TOP SECRET documents spirited away to Mar-A-Lago, crickets.
The news media corporations think THAT'S boring.

 

[RobertU]

Maybe the leak wasn't related to politics. If some health industry stocks are sensitive to changes in abortion law, maybe a law clerk leaked the Roe material in order to engage in "short selling" of certain stocks. (I've been watching Billions on DVDs from the library.)