SCOTUS now leaks like a sieve
Now we have another reminder of how far this country has degenerated. The NY Times recently published this piece about recent SCOTUS deliberations concerning the Trump cases. From this Reason article by Volokh:
First, this leak is far worse than the Dobbs leak. In Dobbs, one or more people exfiltrated a draft opinion from inside the Court, and somehow that opinion made its way to Politico. (Maybe Jodi Kantor can tell us how that happened!) It was devastating for the draft decision to become public, and it nearly led to the assassination of Justice Kavanaugh. But the aftermath of the leak was swift and overwhelming: the Court was placed on lockdown, and a sweeping investigation was launched to find the culprit(s). But the Trump leaks are systematic and thorough. We have insights of confidential memoranda, detailed conversations at conferences, KBJ’s changed vote, Justice Alito losing the Fischer majority, and information about many Roberts clerks were working on the case. This tapestry would require insights from so many different people. Moreover, all of this comes after the Dobbs leak when Chief Justice Roberts (apparently) put strict limitations on access to Court information. What did all of those measures accomplish? Apparently not much.
Second, and I alluded to this point in my earlier post, Justice Kagan is absent from this reporting. There is absolutely nothing about what she thought or did during these deliberations. There are insights into all of the other eight Justices, but nothing on Kagan. This isn’t new. Back in the day when Biskupic got the scoops, Kagan was also largely absent. I think it likely that Kagan, or at least Kagan surrogates, are behind these leaks. If Kagan is willing to publicly undermine her colleagues in a speech at the Ninth Circuit, why would she do any less off-the-record?
In recent years, the left has been chipping away at respect for the Court. They consider it an unacceptable outrage that, for the moment, it has a majority appointed by Republicans. The left sees the left as the only legitimate holder of power in all branches of government and all institutions.
“The left sees the left as the only legitimate holder of power in all branches of government and all institutions.”
Make that the “Far Left.” The Glenn Greenwalds, Michael Schellenbergers and Alan Dershowitz’s undoubtably dissent.
T J:
None of those three are on the left. They are either old-fashioned liberals or libertarians, or some combination of the two. Shellenberger identifies as an Independent, and Dershowitz recently announced that he is no longer a Democrat but is instead an Independent. As for Greenwald, he has an idiosyncratic mix of positions in common with Republicans and Democrats, but is mostly a libertarian and a strong free speech advocate,
“The left sees the left as the only legitimate holder of power in all branches of government and all institutions.”
Absolutely correct. And they’re willing to destroy the country to hold onto that power, as crazy as that is.
“Dershowitz recently announced that he is no longer a Democrat but is instead an Independent.”
I would guess that if pressed, Dersh would make it clear that like “every reasonable person”, he doesn’t support Trump either (he may have already made this statement at some point during the trials).
noctus:
You would guess wrong. Dershowitz has made it clear he has not yet decided who he’s going to vote for but he has not ruled out Trump, whom you may remember he defended on constitutional issues in one of the impeachment trials.
These repeated leaks are a disgrace, and if from one of the justices, deliberately destructive to the institution and to the American Republic. Shameful.
“The left sees the left as the only legitimate holder of power in all branches of government and all institutions.”
How anybody does not see this just baffles me.
Perhaps it’s because the propaganda efforts of the mainstream media and those who own / run the social media sites are so effective in spreading the leftist message while portraying the conservative agenda / Trump as Nazis.
The “victims” of this propaganda must take the brunt of blame because they simply do not bother seeking alternate versions of what is reported. One must make an effort to read or hear differing perspectives, but many (most?) folks simply do not do this.
As that great proponent of individual liberties and democracy, Joseph Goebbels, put it:
“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.”
Yep, it’s just easier to stick one’s head in the sand.
I don’t buy that “old fashioned liberals” are not on the left. Remember the origin of the term. Danton would probably be considered somewhat conservative today. Almost all of them were nationalists, for example.
Eeyore:
I am using the term not in some historical sense but as it’s generally used and understood today. I have written many posts on the subject of leftists and liberals and the differences between them.
I don’t know what you mean when you use the term “liberal” or “classical liberal.” To me, it means and has always meant “soft left,” as opposed to extreme, or radical, or hard left. Liberalism is left of center, hence: left. I’ve always opposed liberals and liberalism, in the political sense, for just this reason. I can say more if you want.
Roberts didn’t want to find the first leak giving the fact finding job to someone without a clue where to begin. Everyone knew that was the opening of the floodgates. Kegan camp would be the first guess.
When he was still funny, the late P.J. O’Rourke wrote that the three co-equal branches of the Federal Government were Money, Television, and Bullshit.
F (2:58 pm) laments that the left is “willing to destroy the country to hold onto that power, as crazy as that is.”
Ohh no, not “destroy” — “fortify”. [Heaven forfend.] They are busy *fortifying* what USA is already becoming. /SARCASM . . . . . “SARCASM” but all too true.
Ms K is a piece of work. Larry, Moe, or Curly? Since the latest of this trio doesn’t know what a woman is.
Amy on the other hand, not a stooge BTW, knows and doesn’t have to check her notes.
I suspect a clerk, maybe a senior clerk, who sympathizes with Kagan but doesn’t work for her.
If I recall correctly, nothing about the investigation of how the Dobbs decision was leaked, was ever made public.
What about the release of the leaked email lists? Will we be hearing more about this one?
I think this court action in Reno will also have an important impact on our lives. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-17/rupert-lachlan-james-murdoch-news-corp-fox-court-nevada/104358816
Second item: I am reminded that starting sometime back in the mid 1960’s anyone attending university was indoctrinated with the idea that this country “had to change for the better”. That graduates were “agents of change”. Thus it is that so many millions of people support the D party. They have been brainwashed for years–way before Obama. HTH do you plan to hold on to this country when four generations of people are opposed to free speech and our democracy?
I don’t know what you mean when you use the term “liberal” or “classical liberal.” To me, it means and has always meant “soft left,” as opposed to extreme, or radical, or hard left.
I agree, in my lifetime. I’m old enough to remember the news anchor John Chancellor’s prissy smirks/sneers when reading teleprompter news about Republicans.
They were soft on Communism but tried to hide it. Now the masks are off, but they call themselves Socialists. Changing the definition of “Red” helped. Thanks, Tim Russert…not!
I think “classical liberals” is something from centuries ago. Again, today’s Leftist wolves donned sheep’s clothing.
It’s Kagan, for certain. She is both stupid enough to think she is justified in doing so in order to rein in the Court’s current “conservative” trend and evil enough to disregard the risk to the very existence of a “fair and impartial” judiciary that her actions pose.
I don’t know what you mean when you use the term “liberal” or “classical liberal.” To me, it means and has always meant “soft left,” as opposed to extreme, or radical, or hard left.
==
The term ‘classical liberal’ commonly refers to pre-1914 usage in occidental societies, retained in Europe to some degree. Friedrich von Hayek favored the term ‘old Whig’ to indicate the same nexus of ideas, which is a social order in which private property, freedom of contract, a menu of immunities from state actors, and government by elected conciliar bodies were cardinal features. The term ‘social-liberal’ is sometimes used to refer to a foundationally liberal viewpoint qualified by an interest in enacting social insurance programs and the like.
==
The term ‘liberal’ was appropriated by the Democratic Party in the New Deal era even though Roosevelt’s preferred policy options were neither classical liberal nor social liberal. Roosevelt and his camarilla had a considerable affection for sectoral bargaining, production controls, administrative rationing, price controls, price manipulation, and administrative allocation of rights to common property resources.
==
The parody version of classical liberal in our time is to be found among soi-disant libertarians.
==
The old-fashioned liberals to which Neo refers are people with fixed standards who have an interest in public policy. They’re not very numerous as the only policy measures street-level Democrats favor are those intended to feed their pets or injure their opponents, and the only standards they have is will the method in question allow them freer rein to do those two things.
If Kagan is the one whose viewpoint is concealed, the leak is coming from her office. Note, if they actually do have summaries of discussions among the Justices, she has to be the source. (I would not put it past today’s media to just make things up out of whole cloth).
Steve (retired/recovering lawyer) – I’ve never considered Kagan stupid. Not at all. I think she’s the most intelligent and effective progressive on the Court.
She’s been a very smooth operator on the Court, albeit while stretching language and existing norms. I was very much less than impressed with her stating that there was no right to same-sex marriage during her confirmation and then consistently voting the opposite way. (So “no” actually meant “not yet” or “not until we get 5 votes.”) I was also much less than impressed with her sitting in the Obamacare case after participating in the case as an attorney. (Useful context for the current leftist freak out about recusal.)
Evidence of effectiveness – she played the long game on the Obamacare case – giving Roberts a mostly Pyrrhic victory on Medicaid/coercive grants in order to pull him from Alito’s failed majority. I also think she influenced Gorsuch on Bostock. His Bostock opinion almost makes sense based on the language of the statute if you squint at it hard enough, and ignore the fact that the statute was drafted by people who were not at all anticipating the current trans issue. I’ve always contrasted Kagan with the rhetorical bomb-throwing of Sotomayor and Jackson. Sotomayor and Jackson get the love in the progressive fever swamps, but Kagan is the progressive who actually gets results, albeit based on what is possible rather than what the left really, really wants.
Given all that, I think it is an ill omen if Kagan is responsible for these leaks. It means that she believes Court packing is possible and she’s doing what she can to bring it about – and what she can do is probably considerable. (The only potential silver lining is that she may be destroying her credibility with her conservative colleagues so that, if Court packing fails, she may be much less effective in the future.)
Roberts has proved to be an unrigorous thinker on too many occassions to count too easily swayed by the latest fad so he did rule the right way on a few cases why not all of them
The left sees the left as the only legitimate holder of power in all branches of government and all institutions.
Rush used to make this very point. It’s the conceit of the left: “We’re more intelligent and even better people than the rubes, so we should be in power. Anything done in service to that justifies the means.”
Art Deco:
I know the etymology of “liberal.” I stand by what I said. In America, liberal is left. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. But . . . it is left. But I’m not going to write a long post explaining how and why this is so, how it came to be. It would bore everyone, myself included. I’m just making a statement. Discuss at your leisure.
Not that kavanaugh or barrett proved themselves any more rigorous this term
Of course the modern usage of the term “liberal” is essentially an oxymoron. The Left is ever advocating for less personal freedoms in favor of more centralized control of individuals (unless you count abortion as a personal freedom anyway). Most modern “liberals” seem to have a deep mistrust and even antipathy towards their fellow humans as well as an irrational belief in the wisdom, incorruptability, and goodness of a select few; those being the elites and technocrats who went to correct schools and associate with the correct groups and employ the correct language. It’s a very retrograde, medival way of looking at the world. They not at all “liberal”. They not at all “progressive”. They’re regressive and totalitarian.
I think the word “liberal” should be removed from current use in American politics. “Liberals” used to be people who favored free speech and a live-and-let-live attitude about people’s personal choices so long as those were not actively harmful to others. In the twentieth century, most of those also favored government programs to some degree. The numbers of these left among Democrats are vanishingly small.
“Liberals” used to be people who favored free speech and a live-and-let-live attitude about people’s personal choices so long as those were not actively harmful to others.
==
The effective definition of ‘actively harmful’ presumed their own tastes and sensibilities.
I should have said “with consenting adults, not resulting in serious bodily injury or death.”
What? The Democrats are trying to destroy SCOTUS?
Who’da thunk it?
(Just another scalp in their belt, I guess…)