[W: #41] Supreme Court leak represents unprecedented break in confidentiality. Should Action be Taken Against the Perpetrator(s)?

[Captain Adverse]

First the news report:



So it appears that this SCOTUS "draft" decision was leaked to POLITICO, and then published before any actual ruling occurred.

The thing to understand is that Justices when determining their positions on issues often prepare drafts for discussion and review before coming to any actual decision.

To assist with the processes, the Court has legal "clerks," i.e. lawyers who help them with research, compiling notes, and other support tasks.

In this capacity they hold a position of trust and are as bound to strict confidentiality as they would in any other legal situation.

Regardless of your views, this violation is problematic and a black mark on the entire process.

So the question is:

Should action be taken against whomever violated their trust or not?

If you vote YES, explain the action you would like to see occur.

If you vote NO, explain why in this circumstance nothing should be done.

If other, explain.

 

[Jredbaron96]

If someone intentionally did so they should be fired and disbarred from further Federal service.

 

[tacomancer]

Its not unprecedented, but I don't think this person would deserve whistleblower protection.

However, I am happy that various states will have time to prepare for this, even if the way it happened is the wrong way.

 

[BlueTex]

First the news report:



So it appears that this SCOTUS "draft" decision was leaked to POLITICO, and then published before any actual ruling occurred.

The thing to understand is that Justices when determining their positions on issues often prepare drafts for discussion and review before coming to any actual decision.

To assist with the processes, the Court has legal "clerks," i.e. lawyers who help them with research, compiling notes, and other support tasks.

In this capacity they hold a position of trust and are as bound to strict confidentiality as they would in any other legal situation.

Regardless of your views, this violation is problematic and a black mark on the entire process.

So the question is:

Should action be taken against whomever violated their trust or not?

If you vote YES, explain the action you would like to see occur.

If you vote NO, explain why in this circumstance nothing should be done.

If other, explain.

She is an idiot.. It HAS happened before... What action would you suggest be taken?

 

[Mycroft]

First the news report:



So it appears that this SCOTUS "draft" decision was leaked to POLITICO, and then published before any actual ruling occurred.

The thing to understand is that Justices when determining their positions on issues often prepare drafts for discussion and review before coming to any actual decision.

To assist with the processes, the Court has legal "clerks," i.e. lawyers who help them with research, compiling notes, and other support tasks.

In this capacity they hold a position of trust and are as bound to strict confidentiality as they would in any other legal situation.

Regardless of your views, this violation is problematic and a black mark on the entire process.

So the question is:

Should action be taken against whomever violated their trust or not?

If you vote YES, explain the action you would like to see occur.

If you vote NO, explain why in this circumstance nothing should be done.

If other, explain.

I voted yes, but I have to admit that I don't know exactly WHAT action can be taken. I don't know what laws are relevant.

Are there laws that make such an action criminal? I don't know, but if there are, then the leaker could be in for a world of hurt.

Were NDA's violated? Probably. But what are the legal consequences?

In any case, the fact of this leak happening is a threat to the long-established processes of the Supreme Court. The current Justices cannot allow this to pass without some effective response.

 

[Overitall]

If someone intentionally did so they should be fired and disbarred from further Federal service.

I'm not sure how Politico could have received the document unintentionally.

 

[tres borrachos]

Except it isn't unprecedented and it did happen before. Look up Dred Scott and the New York Tribune. McEnany didn't.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

If they catch who leaked it, they'll never work as a lawyer again. There's no real question about that.

But it's almost certainly not a crime.

 

[roughdraft274]

First the news report:



So it appears that this SCOTUS "draft" decision was leaked to POLITICO, and then published before any actual ruling occurred.

The thing to understand is that Justices when determining their positions on issues often prepare drafts for discussion and review before coming to any actual decision.

To assist with the processes, the Court has legal "clerks," i.e. lawyers who help them with research, compiling notes, and other support tasks.

In this capacity they hold a position of trust and are as bound to strict confidentiality as they would in any other legal situation.

Regardless of your views, this violation is problematic and a black mark on the entire process.

So the question is:

Should action be taken against whomever violated their trust or not?

If you vote YES, explain the action you would like to see occur.

If you vote NO, explain why in this circumstance nothing should be done.

If other, explain.

My opinion has been straight forward on other leaks and hasn't changed with this one. If you catch the person who is illegally leaking things, then they should be punished. But at the same time, there's no reason to ignore the leaks. Hillary's emails, even though they were illegally obtained, were fair game. So this draft opinion is also fair game in the world of politics. But if the leaker is caught, I'd have to imagine at the very least they are getting disbarred and won't have a job in law ever again. If they broke an actual crime I would think the government would go after them and prosecute. The only way I could imagine me not supporting a prosecution is if the leak had gone through the proper channels, as the whistleblower did when Trump tried to blackmail Ukraine.

 

[Cameron]

Whoever leaked it should be fired, unless it was a Justice, then I guess there are procedures for that. I doubt it was a Justice though.

I don't know of any crime this would qualify as.

 

[PoS]

If someone intentionally did so they should be fired and disbarred from further Federal service.

Sounds fine to me, but if it was a SCJ that did it, he/she will have to be impeached first.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Yes, while this is not the first time such a leak has occurred it should not be ignored.

 

[Overitall]

If they catch who leaked it, they'll never work as a lawyer again. There's no real question about that.

But it's almost certainly not a crime.

Debatable.

Homepage - Freedom Forum

The Freedom Forum’s mission is to foster First Amendment freedoms for all.

www.freedomforuminstitute.org

*It’s a crime to steal, sell, or convey, “any record, voucher, money, or thing of value” to the United States.

Would a SC document be consider a "record . . . or thing of value"? I contend it possibly could be.

 

[Superfly]

If someone intentionally did so they should be fired and disbarred from further Federal service.

Yeah sure, but let's focus on that and not what they actually leaked.

 

[Superfly]

Except it isn't unprecedented and it did happen before. Look up Dred Scott and the New York Tribune. McEnany didn't.

McEnany doesn't look up anything except how much bleach she can actually use on her hair before it starts affecting cognitive function (answer: she passed that point long ago).

 

[Rawley]

First the news report:



So it appears that this SCOTUS "draft" decision was leaked to POLITICO, and then published before any actual ruling occurred.

The thing to understand is that Justices when determining their positions on issues often prepare drafts for discussion and review before coming to any actual decision.

To assist with the processes, the Court has legal "clerks," i.e. lawyers who help them with research, compiling notes, and other support tasks.

In this capacity they hold a position of trust and are as bound to strict confidentiality as they would in any other legal situation.

Regardless of your views, this violation is problematic and a black mark on the entire process.

So the question is:

Should action be taken against whomever violated their trust or not?

If you vote YES, explain the action you would like to see occur.

If you vote NO, explain why in this circumstance nothing should be done.

If other, explain.

Bisbarred and criminal prosecution.

 

[Rawley]

Debatable.

Homepage - Freedom Forum

The Freedom Forum’s mission is to foster First Amendment freedoms for all.

www.freedomforuminstitute.org

Would a SC document be consider a "record . . . or thing of value"? I contend it possibly could be.

Of course it would. Look a the hay the DEmocrats are making of it.

 

[Overitall]

Yeah sure, but let's focus on that and not what they actually leaked.

No matter what, the SC was scheduled to release its opinion in June. It was inevitable so turning this into a full blown discussion over the contents of the document itself, rather than it being leaked is irrelevant to the thread subject matter.

 

[JMB802]

Bisbarred and criminal prosecution.

What's the crime?

 

[Overitall]

Of course it would. Look a the hay the DEmocrats are making of it.

The democrats are always looking for the next crisis they can exploit. I think they were just handed a gift.

 

[Rexedgar]

Where can I find the ethics rules that apply to the justices?

 

[Rawley]

The democrats are always looking for the next crisis they can exploit. I think they were just handed a gift.

perhaps. But I'm happy to live with the consequences

 

[JMB802]

The democrats are always looking for the next crisis they can exploit. I think they were just handed a gift.

A Supreme Court decision that negatively impacts women's health is an actual crisis.

As opposed to FRW manufactured crises about gender boogeymen and fairy tales about kids being taught to be ashamed of their whiteness.

 

[Overitall]

A Supreme Court decision that negatively impacts women's health is an actual crisis.

Besides the point of the thread's subject matter. Abortion, by the contents of this leaked document will not be banned in the United States.

As opposed to FRW manufactured crises about gender boogeymen and fairy tales about kids being taught to be ashamed of their whiteness.

 

[Overitall]

perhaps. But I'm happy to live with the consequences

I'm not sure what you're alluding to here.