>
If Roberts actually cared about a meaningful legacy, he'd resign. It would be the most meaningful thing he could do. >

Alito was the leaker! I mean, this should be obvious. >


We finally got an update from the Supreme Court about its probe into last year's draft opinion leak and ... the court says it doesn’t know who did it.
That’s not too surprising. But what’s more troubling than the leak itself is how the court may have conducted the investigation: namely, that it's not clear whether the justices were subjected to the same investigative intrusions as their clerks and staff members.
The court marshal’s report, released Thursday, mentioned internal investigative steps taken. Among them were to ask "personnel" and "employees" who denied leaking to swear to the truth of those statements in affidavits:

The investigation focused on Court personnel — temporary (law clerks) and permanent employees — who had or may have had access to the draft opinion during the period from the initial circulation until the publication by Politico. ... [A]ll personnel who had access to the draft opinion signed sworn affidavits affirming they did not disclose the draft opinion nor know anything about who did. If the investigators determine any of these personnel lied, they could be subject to prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. ... At the conclusion of the initial interviews, each employee was asked to sign an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, affirming that he or she did not disclose the Dobbs draft opinion to any person not employed by the Supreme Court...

That is, the Supreme Court locked people into statements that could subject them to criminal charges down the road.
Social media lit up after the report’s release, with its vague wording leading many legal experts to ask the same question: Were the justices fully investigated along with their clerks and staff members?
The report isn't clear on that score. If indeed the justices haven’t been subjected to those same measures, then that’s reason enough not to take the effort seriously. >

Well it’s a another Glass Onion mystery all right. >

Benoit Blanc doesn’t do stupid cases well, however. >

Ginni Thomas??????? >

If Roberts actually cared about a meaningful legacy, he'd resign. It would be the most meaningful thing he could do. >

Alito was the leaker! I mean, this should be obvious. >

Thomas feels left out >


We finally got an update from the Supreme Court about its probe into last year's draft opinion leak and ... the court says it doesn’t know who did it.
That’s not too surprising. But what’s more troubling than the leak itself is how the court may have conducted the investigation: namely, that it's not clear whether the justices were subjected to the same investigative intrusions as their clerks and staff members.
The court marshal’s report, released Thursday, mentioned internal investigative steps taken. Among them were to ask "personnel" and "employees" who denied leaking to swear to the truth of those statements in affidavits:

The investigation focused on Court personnel — temporary (law clerks) and permanent employees — who had or may have had access to the draft opinion during the period from the initial circulation until the publication by Politico. ... [A]ll personnel who had access to the draft opinion signed sworn affidavits affirming they did not disclose the draft opinion nor know anything about who did. If the investigators determine any of these personnel lied, they could be subject to prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. ... At the conclusion of the initial interviews, each employee was asked to sign an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, affirming that he or she did not disclose the Dobbs draft opinion to any person not employed by the Supreme Court...

That is, the Supreme Court locked people into statements that could subject them to criminal charges down the road.
Social media lit up after the report’s release, with its vague wording leading many legal experts to ask the same question: Were the justices fully investigated along with their clerks and staff members?
The report isn't clear on that score. If indeed the justices haven’t been subjected to those same measures, then that’s reason enough not to take the effort seriously. >

Well it’s a another Glass Onion mystery all right. >

Benoit Blanc doesn’t do dumb things well, however. >

Q: can the justices themselves be investigated without their consent? Can they be forced to answer investigators' questions? Per what constitutional provision? >

No, they're above ethics. Additionally no laws were broken as far as I know. The executive branch is the only branch that can compartmentalize anything, so the draft isn't some top secret thing. It's just a word document. Which makes it merely an ethics violation. Meaningless to lifetime appointed justices. 
Congress could care, but they're picking their noses and sharing with their friends while the Democrats look on in awe and disgust. >

Ginni Thomas??????? >

She wouldn't do it without the approval of her spouse.  Telling people yes, releasing the entire opinion no.  
And obvious point - why didn't Thomas write the opinion ?   Isn't he  the senior judge who has been working his entire career for this point?  Why would he hand it off to Alito ? >

Think about working for these guys.  And getting grilled, forced to sign things, etc.  and their bosses....don't.  And everyone else looks at it....and sees the corruption of not asking the judges. >

Are they Human? Then yes. >

Come the fuck on with this stupid headline. 
This isn't rocket science. 
The Justices themselves were not subject to questioning because Roberts knows exactly who the source of the leak is and is terrified that the reveal that Alito is responsible will destroy the very little credibility the court has left, will prompt a Senate investigation, and ultimately force more than one of the right wing justices resign in disgrace, which will result in Biden seating new justices to replace them. >

What's the lawyer's adage ?
Never ask a question you don't already know the answer to.
The justices weren't asked because it was one of them. 
Law clerks wouldn't do this shit on their own.  There is no way they have worked to get a clerkship at a supreme court to blow it to release the full ruling 2-3 months early.  It does nothing for them and no law firm would touch them with a 10ft pool if it was found out.  
Liberals ?  Yah nope not going to help them either.  American public is fickle.  Releasing that bombshell closer to the election only helps Democrats.  Releasing it early - not really.
It was Alito or Thomas to box in Kavanaugh from siding with Roberts (thus keeping abortion, but severely restricting it).  It is the only logical play.