38 ms·
How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare
- eganist 4y agoThe main topic may be a bit more heated and less aligned with typical discussions on HN, but as a DC resident and security/policy wonk I found the details of the breach of the Supreme Court's veil to be much more fascinating. Main topic is the leak of the draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abort...
- parrellel 4y agoWow, that was some reading. I suppose that the conservative judges will be going after Marbury next, just for the humor value. The hell. I can see why that got leaked.
- incomingpain 4y agoThe main topic is inappropriately flagged, but you can clearly see the meltdown and why it's flagged. In terms of a breach, I don't believe I've seen anything like this. They seem to have figured out who leaked this. That person will have to live with their decision. I don't know how they will justify or rationalize it, but I don't fathom I would want to be them right now. Insider threat is very commonly a breach/leak issue. People who have legitimate reason to have access can decide what to do afterwards. No magic DLP is ever stopping someone who has real access. You have to pat people down and wand them for metals and even look for concealed sd cards. It far more security than they are ever subjecting to these people. So the hole is open. The only way to prevent a breach when the hole is open is to ensure there's no need to leak. If discussing or planning to repeal roe vs wade. The supreme court should be doing this all in public. It doesn't have to be all out news event or even live for that matter.
- elliekelly 4y ago> They seem to have figured out who leaked this. Source? Can you elaborate? This is the first I’ve seen anything even mentioned about identifying the source of the leak.
- remarkEon 4y agoI'm not going to link it, because they're probably catching some significant heat already, but there's speculation it was one of Sotomayor's clerks. Scroll twitter for a bit if you're inclined and you'll find it.
- elliekelly 4y agoSooo a twitter rumor?
- remarkEon 4y agoAt this point, yes, just a twitter rumor.
- rayiner 4y agoThis sort of leak, likely from a law clerk given that it was a draft opinion, is not a good development. Nobody has any loyalty to their institutions anymore. Every institutional loyalty has been subjected to team red or team blue.
- magpi3 4y agoDon't you think it was for money? A law clerk would be risking their entire career for this, and I can't imagine they would do that just to get the news out early. I wonder if politico will acknowledge whether or not they paid for the leak.
- showerst 4y agoI’m doubtful of that; politico lives and dies on having friends in government willing to break things (whether by leaks or just telling their reporters public facts first). Looking like a tabloid has only downside for politico — either people will start to want money for scoops, or they’ll get cut off.
- jimmygrapes 4y agoI'd venture it was deemed "worth it" just like the absurd amount of leaks just after Jan 20, 2017. In this case, it's possible that an intentional leak of a draft is aimed to encourage politicians and activists alike to ~~threaten~~encourage various Justices to change their minds before the final decision, ala ACA/Roberts
- sg47 4y ago[flagged]
- jmcgough 4y agowish this was true
- humanistbot 4y agoWow, I'm learning from HN that Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned.
- ceejayoz 4y agoIt's been on every major US news site and channel for about the last hour.
- humanistbot 4y agoI don't read any major US news site regularly.
- ceejayoz 4y agoWhy is it a “wow” that you find it here, in that case?
- boringg 4y agoOr is it wow that Roe vs Wade is going to get overturned is surprising? It was always assumed when Kavanagh got on SCOTUS but people were hopeful it wouldn't come to that.
- xeromal 4y agoBecause hackernews is a tech website. Just a strange place for this topic to come up even if the leak might have been technological in some regard.
- tbrownaw 4y agoThe initial discussion at least was about the leak itself -- who might benefit, what impact it might have -- rather than the decision that was leaked. That's a kind of technical nerdery despite having nothing to do with computers. And it's interesting, and fun to (argue|watch arguments) about.
- deleted 4y ago
- dragonwriter 4y agoSCOTUSblog’s Twitter has an on point take on the significance of the leak within the Court: https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1521295411545260035?t=aWfPBgVsp8L-NLljkOc2wg&s=19 https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1521295411545260035?t=... It’s impossible to overstate the earthquake this will cause inside the Court, in terms of the destruction of trust among the Justices and staff. This leak is the gravest, most unforgivable sin.
- eganist 4y agoI'm not at all surprised. Though I wonder if the risk of leaks going forward might act as a normalizing force on "hot take" court opinions (in either direction). I'm looking forward to a post-leak Supreme Court, at least for now. I can't foresee negative outcomes yet so I'm open to a counter-thought to the one I presented above.
- hammock 4y agoAka a chilling effect (a phrase invented in high court opinion) on justice, if unpopular
- vkou 4y agoThe SC has always taken public opinion into account when making their decisions. No 19th century SC would have ruled gay marriage to be legal. Judges care about their legacy, and most of the time, most of them don't want a legacy of being the asshole on the wrong side of history.
- KerrAvon 4y agoUnless they’re the end product of a 60-year old project to remake america in the image of the John Birch Society. Then anything goes.
- aaomidi 4y ago
- debacle 4y agoA bit meta, but if 2015 reddit was still around this would have never been shared to HN. I miss deeply 2015 reddit.
- hindsightbias 4y agoUnherd of before rulings, but this is the big one. But they’re just warming up. Obergefell v. Hodges, Affirmative Action… a lot of unwinding in the next generation. Remember, both sides are the same. /s
- ceejayoz 4y agoLawrence and Griswold may be on the chopping block, as well.
- giantg2 4y agoI was just reading about Griswold. It was certainly interesting. I think I want to read the full opinion when I get time.
- bruceb 4y agoNo. No state is going after that. People don't care enough. There are not significant anti gay sex groups.
- hindsightbias 4y ago
- ceejayoz 4y agoIt was explicitly banned in quite a few states less than twenty years ago, and Florida passed notable anti-gay legislation just last month.
- rayiner 4y ago
- cocacola1 4y agoSure they'll go after it. There are people that believe that contraception is murder.
- swader999 4y ago
- boringg 4y agoUm have you ever looked at the base of the republicans? If you mean the political part of the republicans - probably not but it will get the base out to vote. The religious base? Absolutely wants this.
- colechristensen 4y agoLatest sign that the republic is falling. Of course it will still look like it's here for a long time (e.g. the Roman Empire mostly had the same institutions, in name, as the republic) and the decline will be slow-ish.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mynameishere 4y agoOh, well. Roe is really bad law. I mean, just pure made-up gibberish. A real defilement of the Constitution. You should be able to love abortion and hate dada arguments for it at the same time. (I think?) Abortion will still be legal as a practical matter. Some people might have to travel to the next state over, of course.
- AnEro 4y agoOh right just be rich or not live in red states, how could I be so stupid as to worry
- macintux 4y ago> Some people might have to travel to the next state over, of course. For the wealthy, this is no big deal. For the poor, that's a huge problem. Especially since the next state over might well have their own restrictions that, e.g., require multiple doctor visits and a waiting period. Poor women will die as a consequence of this decision.
- s5300 4y ago
- brendoelfrendo 4y agoWe'll have to see how the courts view laws trying to criminalize abortions over state lines; several states are investigating ways to do this or have proposed legislation to do this. I can't really see them surviving serious legal challenge, but then, here we are having this conversation today.
- sumedh 4y ago> Some people How many? Whose is going to pay the transportation costs if you are poor?
- jmyeet 4y agoPeople focusing on the leak rather than what was actually leaked is testament to just how effective conservatives are at propaganda and messaging.. We don't know if this is a majority opinion. It may be a minority opinion in the hopes of becoming a majority opinion. It may not even be real (although that seems unlikely). It could've been leaked by someone on the right to drum up on support but my guess is it's more likely to be someone liberal-leaning who leaked such a bombshell opinion as a massive regression for bodily autonomy and social rights. If so, that person is a hero. Straight up. Just like then Bradley now Chelsea Manning leaking Benghazi video was (and is) a hero. People have consciences whether you agree with them or not. Even in wartime and with unprecedented security measures the Manhattan Project was leaked to the Soviets basically immediately by people who saw the US having a monopoly on atomic weapons as being bad for the world. It's also why I basically don't believe pretty much every conspiracy theory out there, particularly if it involves a lot of people (eg faked Moon landings). Governments are terrible at keeping secrets simply because they're made up of people and those people have motivations of their own. The Supreme Court is and always has been a political institution. All of the talk about constitutionality is just moralizing and window dressing in expressing a political view as law. This is the same Supreme court that ruled that "citizens" did not include people of African descent [1]. This is the same Supreme Court that in the Reconstruction / Redeemer era completely undermined rights of former slaves. If you concentrate on the leaker here you're missing the big picture. You're falling into right-wing propaganda about the sanctity of the Supreme Court. It's a myth and a lie. [1]: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-americans-really-think-about-abortion/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-americans-really-t...
- WillPostForFood 4y ago"People focusing on the leak rather than what was actually leaked" Have you taken the time to read it? It is the majority opinion. They vote first, then go to write opinions and dissents. It is not a dissent..
- jmyeet 4y agoI have read it. My understanding from reading elsewhere is these situations can be fluid. At the time it was written it may well have been a draft majority opinion. Votes can change. Also, if you accept that the court voted to overturn Roe, the reasoning for doing so can still change. There may be other competing draft majority opinions that are, say, more limited in scope (eg 15 weeks instead of 20). Nothing is really final until it's published so I am cautious of taking it at face value as established fact. That's all.
- adlfkjlkjlawe 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Mountain_Skies 4y agoMaybe this is the issue that causes a Convention of the States to finally happen.
- AnimalMuppet 4y agoYou're not going to find any unity on this issue in a Convention of the States, either.
- vanattab 4y agoHmm I don't know. I could possibly see some room for a compromise between blue and red states where a constitutional addmenment would protect a right to abortion in the first trimester and ban it afterwords. It would be likey be opposed by many on both extremes but ALOT of people are in the fuzzy gray space between the two sides on this very complex issue.
- krapp 4y agoRed states aren't going to compromise now that they know the Supreme Court is in their pocket. If they go for a constitutional amendment it will be for an explicit and unconditional ban on abortion, and probably an amendment banning gay marriage as well. They consider themselves fighting a holy war where these things are concerned, not mere politics, and doesn't compromise with the enemy when one can destroy them utterly.
- AnimalMuppet 4y agoFrom where I sit, the pro-gay-marriage people also think they are fighting a "holy" war, or something equivalent to one. They (at least some of them) certainly act as "destroy them utterly" as the conservatives. In fact, I would guess that at least part of the conservative rage on this issue comes not from gay marriage being legalized, but from liberals who attempt to stamp out and punish any remaining counter-opinion.
- hedora 4y ago
- ComradePhil 4y ago
- AnimalMuppet 4y agoWhat if this is a Russian leak? Hear me out before you shred... A big part of Russia's game has been to try to divide the US politically. Well, this is probably the single biggest hand grenade they could have thrown into the middle of our society. And it's at a time when they'd really love to distract us from what they're doing in Ukraine. So they have motive. It fits their MO. Do they have the means to breach the Supreme Court? Probably. Does that mean that they definitely did it? No. It's just an idea - a pattern that seems to fit. Shred away...
- TearsInTheRain 4y agoWould be interesting if that was the case but Occam's razor says that this was just a disgruntled clerk
- native_samples 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- AnimalMuppet 4y agoNo, the "narrative" is not based just on Clinton's claims. There's way more than that. There's research into fake social media accounts, what they do, and who runs them. To me, the one that really stands out was when sock puppet Facebook accounts organized a BLM rally and a MAGA rally at the same time and place. That seems pretty clear what the intent was.
- native_samples 4y agoAnd virtually all that research is wrong. It's full of stuff like "here's a Russian bot whoops no that's actually a Scottish car park attendant". Or "here's an ML model that detects Russian bots oops it detected Biden as a bot". The quality of evidence for this idea (really, this conspiracy theory) is absurdly low. And it remains true that nobody was spreading this idea up until the moment it became clear that the supposed Russian sock puppets appeared to be supporting both sides in the election. I remember it quite clearly. The supposed Russian master plan changed overnight after that.
- krapp 4y agoWe all knew Roe V. Wade was done as soon as Trump stacked the Court.
- bitwize 4y agoWhoever did this is a Chelsea Manning-tier hero. As long as the conservatives keep ratfucking democracy and human rights, they do not deserve the quarter afforded by the usual closed-door processes.
- encryptluks2 4y ago[flagged]
- bitwize 4y agoThis is true. However, we need to start somewhere and the GOP is overtly a far-right, terrorist organization. It would only take a declaration from the President to that effect, and then the government could legitimately freeze its assets and lock it out of political life, setting the stage for a Democrats-Greens bipartisan political axis. When the farthest right party that's still acceptable is the Democrats, maybe real work can begin.
- encryptluks2 4y ago> It would only take a declaration from the President to that effect, and then the government could legitimately freeze its assets and lock it out of political life, setting the stage for a Democrats-Greens bipartisan political axis. That is how you give up democracy.
- bitwize 4y agoThe Germans banned the Nazis from political participation or even airing their views publicly. Did the Germans give up democracy?
- encryptluks2 4y agoLOL, the Nazis rose to power and it wasn't until they were defeated in war that they did so. It is an entirely different situation, and Germans also lost certain political freedoms including certain video games.