Who leaked the Supreme Court Draft? Here are 4 Theories –

Someone in the Supreme Court leaked a majority draft opinion made by Judge Samuel Alito that allegedly overturned two major abortion decisions against Wade and planned parenting against Casey. Policy. As much as we know.

But we do not know who did it and why. Although the main story here is that the Supreme Court now has five votes to repeal women’s reproductive rights, the source of the leak is still important. In fact, it is very important for abortion rights, as it helps the public understand the rules behind the scenes in court, which may influence Dobbs v. In the final results of the Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

The number of people who can issue a draft opinion to the press from within the Supreme Court is very limited. There are nine judges themselves, their lawyers and support staff.

Below are current theories and why they may affect their outcome.

After Politico published a story about a leaked opinion, the first hypothesis on the Internet was that he was probably annoyed by a liberal lawyer. This theory, however, initially attracted some followers of leftist organizations “Brave employee” The right reaction prevails.

Republican political advisers and media personnel were quick to decide that a particular pastor of one of the liberal courts should be exposed. They even handed the name to this employee and posted their picture on the Internet. (HuffPost did not name this person to avoid an unfounded intent.)

However, there is no evidence that this man was a publicist, other than the fact that they were Liberals, against appointing Judge Brett Cavanaugh, as did many liberal or leftist lawyers, and on one occasion they spoke to one in Politics. The reporters who covered up the leak.

This theory seems compelling. But not very reasonable.

First, the liberal bloc in the three courts has no real power in the court and it cannot be fixed by a design defect. The liberal judiciary has to get two Republicans to side with them, which is a very high hill for a conservative movement on a priority issue like abortion.

And here is the moment. The draft of the leaked report was written in February. Why should we expect months of losses? Liberals who have long been in the minority are still trying to influence the views of the majority they oppose, including Yale Law School professor and former Supreme Court secretary Amy Kapczynski. On Twitter Tuesday.

“Why did you leak something and why did the whole strategy break?” Kaczynski asked.

It is entirely possible to be exposed as a liberal lawyer acting out of anger or resentment or wanting to be MSDNC’s anointed hero of corporate fake news or otherwise.

But if the theory is that they’re trying to change the outcome, it doesn’t make sense. Of course, Conservatives say Democrats will now organize a “riot” on the Supreme Court, but to believe you have to stab Pylon in the brain.

Another theory is that a conservative jurist disseminated an opinion to ensure it was the final opinion. There is no evidence that this theory is correct, but it has a point in its favor: it is based on the history and structure behind the internal work of the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court internal hearings typically work like this: You vote on the result of a decision and then the Supreme Court gives the following opinion to a group member with a majority of five or more votes. This decision was written and then distributed to the editors and other judges to write down their dissenting opinion and consent. Consent is extended first, then disagreed. So the opinion of the majority may be correct for the final project.

“[T]”It’s time to come to an agreement.” On Twitter Tuesday. “I think the best option is for Chief Justice Roberts to issue one recently and take a more moderate stance.”

Here judges may begin to change their minds about the original opinion they claim to support.

So, in theory, Roberts could try to separate the original five judges who joined Alyto’s majority opinion to support an opinion that limits abortion but prevents Ro and Casey’s expulsion.

Roberts, despite being known to oppose abortion, has always maintained public opinion on the legitimacy of the court as his primary concern. For this reason, he tried to slow down the social changes brought about by conservatives in court. Notably, he did not support the other five conservative justice parties in enforcing Texas’s recent abortion law, nor did he join Alito’s leaked majority opinion.

If a conservative pastor wanted to prevent justice by this original group of five who jumped aboard a ship, it could do so with a design flaw. If the court announces its conclusion in June and shows that Brett Cavanaugh or Amy Connie Barrett followed an opinion that does not violate Ross, they will be insulted as a spawn. David Souther.

Signs that conservatives are concerned about Roberts ’moderate influence have already emerged in the conservative media. A By The Wall Street Journal On April 26, he warned that Roberts “could now try to bring another case to justice”, even though Roberts himself sidelined the case in 2012, ending his writing opinion as Affordable support. Care Act.In the editorial there is also a “hypothesis” that Alito is the author of the opinion of the future majority.

“We hope he will not succeed, for the good of the court and the country”, the note said.

This warning came just days after Politico journalists received a leaked memorandum: They were doing the story on May 1. According to the New York Times, four days after the Wall Street Journal was published.

This is not the first time the conservative media has addressed the internal affairs of the court.

In May 2012, conservative and media experts wrote a series of columns warning that Roberts could be shaken and decide to side with liberals on the Affordable Care Act. The presence of these columns seems to indicate that it leaked from within the court that conservatives have. Roberts disappeared.

On May 24, 2012, the National Review ran an editorial asking Roberts to ignore calls to support Liberals and defend the health mandate. Then, on May 26, 2012, a column by George Will was published with the headline “Liberals Pressured Judge Roberts. ”

“Immediately after the court heard the message that Roberts’ voice was ‘flowing’, a right wing bat delivered a clear message: ‘We need to tell the Supreme Court to back us down,’ ”said Josh Blackman, a conservative. Lawyer, he wrote in his book “Unprecedented: the challenge to the Obamacare constitution”.

“George Will and others answered the call. Conservatives, who were noticeably silent on the outcome of the case after the conference, suddenly appeared in their home, like the war going on in a final vote in court.

Something similar happened in the 2019 Supreme Court decision against Boston County Clayton, which states that gay and transgender individuals are protected from discrimination under the Civil Rights Act. A month after hearing the case’s arguments, National Overview E The Wall Street Journal Published articles aimed at removing conservative judge Neil Gorsuch from the textual arguments promoted by liberal justice Elena Kagan.

These public appeals failed and Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion based on an original understanding of the text of the Civil Rights Act.

The theory that the conservative clergy leaked Dobbs v. Jackson’s opinion makes sense. There is a purpose other than to create self-elation and shock: it may have intended to prevent any of the five judges who signed Alito’s leaked opinion from making a softer decision.

And if this is the cause of the leak, it is an important statement about the internal struggles of the court, a vague and elected institution with incredible power over the lives of Americans.

Now we come to the part where we’re talking about the middle, but let’s face it.

“The story that makes the most sense about the leak is that Chief Justice Roberts is really trying to show justice to Swing what the answer will be,” said Sean Trend, senior election analyst at Real Clear Politics. On Twitter Tuesday. “But this is quite unusual for Roberts; “Burning the village to save the village is not his style.”

It has its own logic, but as the trend points out, nothing is more embarrassing than what Roberts or one of his employees does. This contradicts everything he has worked so hard for as President of the Supreme Court, however, as well as this leaked opinion. However, it is hard to imagine that Mr. Judicial Identification would allow this leak and then issue a press release announcing an investigation into the leak.

Could the opinion have been leaked from an assistant who saw a copy accidentally left on the printer? Or could it be from a computer hacker?

These theories are very impossible. The Politico article provides basic information “[a] Someone familiar with the court’s reasoning “explains” that four of the other Republican -appointed judges – Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Cavanaugh and Amy Connie Barrett – voted at a conference of Alito judges after hearing of oral arguments. . December and this composition remains unchanged starting this week. “

This information is important to the story and it is rough information that can only be accessed by a judge or lawyer, or by them.