- Joined
- Jun 22, 2013
- Messages
- 20,271
- Reaction score
- 28,078
- Location
- Mid-West USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
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.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'm not sure how Politico could have received the document unintentionally.If someone intentionally did so they should be fired and disbarred from further Federal service.
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.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.
Sounds fine to me, but if it was a SCJ that did it, he/she will have to be impeached first.If someone intentionally did so they should be fired and disbarred from further Federal service.
Debatable.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.
Would a SC document be consider a "record . . . or thing of value"? I contend it possibly could be.*It’s a crime to steal, sell, or convey, “any record, voucher, money, or thing of value” to the United States.
If someone intentionally did so they should be fired and disbarred from further Federal service.
Except it isn't unprecedented and it did happen before. Look up Dred Scott and the New York Tribune. McEnany didn't.
Bisbarred and criminal prosecution.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.
Of course it would. Look a the hay the DEmocrats are making of it.Debatable.
Would a SC document be consider a "record . . . or thing of value"? I contend it possibly could be.Homepage - Freedom Forum
The Freedom Forum’s mission is to foster First Amendment freedoms for all.www.freedomforuminstitute.org
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.Yeah sure, but let's focus on that and not what they actually leaked.
What's the crime?Bisbarred and criminal prosecution.
The democrats are always looking for the next crisis they can exploit. I think they were just handed a gift.Of course it would. Look a the hay the DEmocrats are making of it.
perhaps. But I'm happy to live with the consequencesThe 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.The democrats are always looking for the next crisis they can exploit. I think they were just handed a gift.
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.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.
I'm not sure what you're alluding to here.perhaps. But I'm happy to live with the consequences
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?