Should SCOTUS Leaker Face Criminal Charges

[fantome profane]

How about a parade?

Why not both?


And then a job as a legal consultant on CNN.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why not both?

OK.
Who does the leaker get to slap?

 

[Father Heathen]

Or maybe they’re constitutional purists.

If that were true they would respect and abide the establishment clause of the first amendment.

 

[Watchmen]

If that were true they would respect and abide the establishment clause of the first amendment.

Well the opinion doesn’t establish a religion so that’s not correct.

 

[tytlyf]

The leaker will be referred to as a 'Traitor' and 'Patriot.' But not both at the same time.

 

[Viker]

No. But they should and likely will be fired like crazy.

 

[F1fan]

It depends on who leaked it and for what purpose. It could certainly violate certain ethical rules if it was leaked by a member of the bar.

A person who used to be a SC clerk tweeted something interesting. She said that there's a good chance the person is one of the conservative clerks. The reason to leak this has certain purposes. One could be that since this is a first daft and quite extreme that it is possible some of the conservative justices were having cold feet and there is disputes about this opinion. To leak this would in essence force the court to limit changes as this would open the door to how far opinions can be changed from a first draft to a final opinion. This would expose the inner workings and uncertainty of decisions as the sausage is made.

So the purpose would be to keep the opinion as close to this version versus a modified version that has less restrictions.

 

[Watchmen]

A person who used to be a SC clerk tweeted something interesting. She said that there's a good chance the person is one of the conservative clerks. The reason to leak this has certain purposes. One could be that since this is a first daft and quite extreme that it is possible some of the conservative justices were having cold feet and there is disputes about this opinion. To leak this would in essence force the court to limit changes as this would open the door to how far opinions can be changed from a first draft to a final opinion. This would expose the inner workings and uncertainty of decisions as the sausage is made.

So the purpose would be to keep the opinion as close to this version versus a modified version that has less restrictions.

Sounds like a lot of speculation.

 

[Ponder This]

Title says it all.

Roberts calls leak of draft Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade a "betrayal" - CBS News

People can face criminal charges when they commit a crime.
Investigating with the intent to invent a crime is something we might refer to as a "witch hunt".

However, disbarment for unethical behavior would be appropriate. Such a person is unfit to serve.

 

[F1fan]

Sounds like a lot of speculation.

Which is all we have. But this is speculation is from a SC clerk, so they have a better perspective than anyone else.

I suspect it likely the person will be exposed.

 

[sun rise]

"Should the person who leaker SCOTUS draft face criminal charges if it is a determined that a criminal act took place"

Yes. My standard are such notables as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Nelson Mandela as well as Gandhi who went to prison for violating the law. I would hope that the jury "nullified" the law (jury nullification is something many hate but justice sometimes demands it) but that's another

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's rather weird that the OP deals with that but not the impact of the decision on millions of Americans, especially since if true would go against roughly 70% of Americans who say they don't want Roe v Wade overturned, and 89% of women in a recent poll said they are against it being overturned if it also included rape and incest victims not be allowed to have one.

Weird how everyone seems to be concerned about invading the privacy of the Supreme Court justices but not so much about invading the privacy of women all across the country, which is what Roe v. Wade is about.
Ironic, I guess?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Weird how everyone seems to be concerned about invading the privacy of the Supreme Court justices but not so much about invading the privacy of women all across the country, which is what Roe v. Wade is about.
Ironic, I guess?

We can talk about separate subjects at the same time right?

 

[SkepticThinker]

We can talk about separate subjects at the same time right?

Of course. And I can point out the irony of it, right?