4 ms·

On the flip side - many are speculating a conservative justice (edit: or staffer) leaked it in an attempt to effectively cement the decision in place before it

On the flip side - many are speculating a conservative justice (edit: or staffer) leaked it in an attempt to effectively cement the decision in place before it could be watered down.

Kranar 5y ago
That would be career suicide for a justice and almost certainly result in impeachment. Furthermore there's almost no reason for any justice to do such a thing.
- ziddoap 5y ago
  >almost certainly result in impeachment. That is awfully optimistic, considering the track record of impeachment in general , and the fact that only one justice has ever faced impeachment and it was over 200 years ago. Not to mention, leaks (as pointed out by the author of this post) are not new, nor are draft opinions protected by any sort of law or classification that would warrant impeachment (that I am aware of, happy to be corrected on this point). >Furthermore there's almost no reason for any justice to do such a thing. Some plausible reasoning has been posited here and elsewhere.
  - Kranar 5y ago
    You are coming to the wrong conclusion. The fact that almost no Justice has faced impeachment is precisely why it's unlikely a Justice leaked this document. Also impeachment does not require any statute to be broken, an officer of the United States can be impeached for any conduct deemed incompatible with the duties of their respective office. Surreptitiously leaking a draft opinion would almost certainly count as conduct unbefitting a Supreme Court Justice, after all if it weren't there'd be no need to be secretive about it.
    - ziddoap 5y ago
      >The fact that almost no Justice has faced impeachment is precisely why it's unlikely a Justice leaked this document. My conclusion wasn't that a Justice leaked the document. My conclusion was that is optimistic to think they would be successfully impeached if it ends up being a Justice. What you've written has not convinced me otherwise. Surely in the previous 200 years, some Justice has done something of similar unbecoming-ness, and yet a successful impeachment of a Justice has never happened.
      - Kranar 5y ago
        >Surely in the previous 200 years, some Justice has done something of similar unbecoming-ness. If something is surely true, then you can surely point to an example of it.
        ziddoap 5y ago
        Hah. I am nowhere near invested enough in this conversation to sift through 200+ years of uninteresting history because of a snarky request. If it makes you happy, I can edit the word "surely" to "moderately probable"?
        Kranar 5y ago
        If you need to sift through 200 years of history to find an example of something you are certain is true, then you should reconsider the standard by which you distinguish truths from pure speculation. You are welcome to speculate that one of the 115 Supreme Court Justices engaged in behavior that would compromise the trust of the institution they serve, but you should not be so certain of it without being able to present some kind of evidence. Furthermore your use of the term "successfully impeached" suggests that you don't understand the meaning of the term, which is fine since it's actually a commonly misunderstood legal term that most people confuse with conviction, but it's a further indication that your speculation on this matter is poorly informed. There is no such thing as a successful impeachment anymore than there is a successful trial, they are both processes rather than outcomes.
- adamsmith143 5y ago
  >That would be career suicide for a justice and almost certainly result in impeachment This seems naive. If Trump can make it past 2 impeachments I have no faith that a Justice would be impeached also not at all clear that this is even impeachable.
  - Kranar 5y ago
    >not at all clear that this is even impeachable. What is your understanding of what an impeachment is?
blockwriter 5y ago
Any justice that would be the target of the proposed influence campaign knows that the process of deliberation is not decided in the first draft. Moreover, none of the justices would need to explain their apparent vacillation to the public. None of their power is derived from public opinion, so they are not incentivized to align themselves with public opinion or public pressure. Is leaking this actually likely to influence a ruling in the more conservative direction?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

On the flip side - many are speculating a conservative justice (edit: or staffer) leaked it in an attempt to effectively cement the decision in place before it could be watered down.

Kranar 5y ago

That would be career suicide for a justice and almost certainly result in impeachment. Furthermore there's almost no reason for any justice to do such a thing.

ziddoap 5y ago
>almost certainly result in impeachment. That is awfully optimistic, considering the track record of impeachment in general , and the fact that only one justice has ever faced impeachment and it was over 200 years ago. Not to mention, leaks (as pointed out by the author of this post) are not new, nor are draft opinions protected by any sort of law or classification that would warrant impeachment (that I am aware of, happy to be corrected on this point). >Furthermore there's almost no reason for any justice to do such a thing. Some plausible reasoning has been posited here and elsewhere.
- Kranar 5y ago
  You are coming to the wrong conclusion. The fact that almost no Justice has faced impeachment is precisely why it's unlikely a Justice leaked this document. Also impeachment does not require any statute to be broken, an officer of the United States can be impeached for any conduct deemed incompatible with the duties of their respective office. Surreptitiously leaking a draft opinion would almost certainly count as conduct unbefitting a Supreme Court Justice, after all if it weren't there'd be no need to be secretive about it.
  - ziddoap 5y ago
    >The fact that almost no Justice has faced impeachment is precisely why it's unlikely a Justice leaked this document. My conclusion wasn't that a Justice leaked the document. My conclusion was that is optimistic to think they would be successfully impeached if it ends up being a Justice. What you've written has not convinced me otherwise. Surely in the previous 200 years, some Justice has done something of similar unbecoming-ness, and yet a successful impeachment of a Justice has never happened.
    - Kranar 5y ago
      >Surely in the previous 200 years, some Justice has done something of similar unbecoming-ness. If something is surely true, then you can surely point to an example of it.
      - ziddoap 5y ago
        Hah. I am nowhere near invested enough in this conversation to sift through 200+ years of uninteresting history because of a snarky request. If it makes you happy, I can edit the word "surely" to "moderately probable"?
        Kranar 5y ago
        If you need to sift through 200 years of history to find an example of something you are certain is true, then you should reconsider the standard by which you distinguish truths from pure speculation. You are welcome to speculate that one of the 115 Supreme Court Justices engaged in behavior that would compromise the trust of the institution they serve, but you should not be so certain of it without being able to present some kind of evidence. Furthermore your use of the term "successfully impeached" suggests that you don't understand the meaning of the term, which is fine since it's actually a commonly misunderstood legal term that most people confuse with conviction, but it's a further indication that your speculation on this matter is poorly informed. There is no such thing as a successful impeachment anymore than there is a successful trial, they are both processes rather than outcomes.
adamsmith143 5y ago
>That would be career suicide for a justice and almost certainly result in impeachment This seems naive. If Trump can make it past 2 impeachments I have no faith that a Justice would be impeached also not at all clear that this is even impeachable.
- Kranar 5y ago
  >not at all clear that this is even impeachable. What is your understanding of what an impeachment is?

blockwriter 5y ago

Any justice that would be the target of the proposed influence campaign knows that the process of deliberation is not decided in the first draft. Moreover, none of the justices would need to explain their apparent vacillation to the public. None of their power is derived from public opinion, so they are not incentivized to align themselves with public opinion or public pressure. Is leaking this actually likely to influence a ruling in the more conservative direction?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]