3 ms·

It seems highly unlikely anyone who leaked this was part of the core of the institution of the Supreme Court. Selection bias kind of leads to an assumption that

by gfodor 4y ago

It seems highly unlikely anyone who leaked this was part of the core of the institution of the Supreme Court. Selection bias kind of leads to an assumption that those who work for the court support the neutrality and processes of the court, and have much to lose from this action vs possibly marginal potential upside. Much more likely is this was either a low level or external actor imo.

anothernewdude 4y ago
> Selection bias kind of leads to an assumption that those who work for the court support the neutrality and processes of the court Certainly hasn't been true for those who make up the court. It's one of the least legitimate legal courts in the land.
- formerkrogemp 4y ago
  > Certainly hasn't been true for those who make up the court. It's one of the least legitimate legal courts in the land. It certainly seems comprised of partisan hacks these days. I see no other way to describe the recent appointments prior to this year. They certainly weren't endorsed by the American Bar Association.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    They ABA doesn’t “endorse” any appointees. They rate them, and Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett all received ratings of “well qualified” which is the ABA’s highest rating. These three were completely obvious Republican picks a decade ago when I was in law school. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were so-called “feeder” judges on the courts of appeals, meaning they were well regarded and sent many of their clerks to clerk on the Supreme Court. (Just like RBG and Breyer and Garland). And Barrett was a star law professor.
LordDragonfang 4y ago
>Selection bias kind of leads to an assumption that those who work for the court support the neutrality and processes of the court That may be true, but a key issue with this reasoning is that there has been an increasing opinion that the move to overturn Roe v Wade is an explicitly partisan affair precipitated by bad-faith manipulations of recent SC appointments from the conservative side.
- cudgy 4y ago
  Clerks work at the Supreme Court for short periods of time, and most of these clerks are brilliant people that would succeed in almost any job. If a clerk felt strongly enough about a polarizing, complex issue such as abortion and also knew they would be considered heroes by others of similar beliefs, taking an action such as this is not only implausible but could quite possibly vault the leaker into legendary status.
  - zerocrates 4y ago
    I think you have an extra "im-" (or a missing "not") around "implausible" there.
  - michaelmrose 4y ago
    Institutions with any sort of money prestige power to hand out only value loyalty and societies destroy defectors because they ultimately don't now and have never valued ethics decency or morality. We only like rebellion when its a prepackages story about someone whose values and loyalty are aligned with the present winners about their rebellion against now disgraced and powerless losers. We aren't good people we just play them on TV. They would be more likely to get a legendary amount of shares on facebook while their actual life crashed even if folks didn't find a way to put them in jail based on a usefully broad interpretation of the CFAA for example. One could imagine that they face merely professional ruin NOW but face actual legal action only years hence when the administration changed for example. It would an extremely dubious position to be in.
- forgetfulness 4y ago
  Roe v Wade is already a result of the politicization of the US Supreme Court, which is used an an upper-upper-house to pass legislation for which there is no consensus, by both parties. This has resulted in a continued erosion of institutions.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
CPLX 4y ago
I mean the implication here doesn't seem all that subtle. I think he's kind of pointing in the direction of Clarence Thomas's wife, who is a batshit crazy right wing activist that was involved in the events of January 6th. No idea if he's right but it's well within the range of plausibility.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
db65edfc7996 4y ago
>...and have much to lose from this action vs possibly marginal potential upside That would be my assumption as well. Clerking at the Supreme Court seems like one of the top appointments one could possibly achieve. Requiring top tier academics and some number of personal connections to secure the position. This stunt would destroy all of their future prospects.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  > This stunt would destroy all of their future prospects. Or is a high-risk, high-reward way to launch a political career. I can see someone running for office with this as a cornerstone of their campaign. I don't think it's a good plan, but maybe it is or is perceived to be by the leaker.

by gfodor 4y ago

anothernewdude 4y ago

> Selection bias kind of leads to an assumption that those who work for the court support the neutrality and processes of the court Certainly hasn't been true for those who make up the court. It's one of the least legitimate legal courts in the land.

formerkrogemp 4y ago
> Certainly hasn't been true for those who make up the court. It's one of the least legitimate legal courts in the land. It certainly seems comprised of partisan hacks these days. I see no other way to describe the recent appointments prior to this year. They certainly weren't endorsed by the American Bar Association.
- rayiner 4y ago
  They ABA doesn’t “endorse” any appointees. They rate them, and Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett all received ratings of “well qualified” which is the ABA’s highest rating. These three were completely obvious Republican picks a decade ago when I was in law school. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were so-called “feeder” judges on the courts of appeals, meaning they were well regarded and sent many of their clerks to clerk on the Supreme Court. (Just like RBG and Breyer and Garland). And Barrett was a star law professor.

LordDragonfang 4y ago

>Selection bias kind of leads to an assumption that those who work for the court support the neutrality and processes of the court That may be true, but a key issue with this reasoning is that there has been an increasing opinion that the move to overturn Roe v Wade is an explicitly partisan affair precipitated by bad-faith manipulations of recent SC appointments from the conservative side.

cudgy 4y ago
Clerks work at the Supreme Court for short periods of time, and most of these clerks are brilliant people that would succeed in almost any job. If a clerk felt strongly enough about a polarizing, complex issue such as abortion and also knew they would be considered heroes by others of similar beliefs, taking an action such as this is not only implausible but could quite possibly vault the leaker into legendary status.
- zerocrates 4y ago
  I think you have an extra "im-" (or a missing "not") around "implausible" there.
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  Institutions with any sort of money prestige power to hand out only value loyalty and societies destroy defectors because they ultimately don't now and have never valued ethics decency or morality. We only like rebellion when its a prepackages story about someone whose values and loyalty are aligned with the present winners about their rebellion against now disgraced and powerless losers. We aren't good people we just play them on TV. They would be more likely to get a legendary amount of shares on facebook while their actual life crashed even if folks didn't find a way to put them in jail based on a usefully broad interpretation of the CFAA for example. One could imagine that they face merely professional ruin NOW but face actual legal action only years hence when the administration changed for example. It would an extremely dubious position to be in.
forgetfulness 4y ago
Roe v Wade is already a result of the politicization of the US Supreme Court, which is used an an upper-upper-house to pass legislation for which there is no consensus, by both parties. This has resulted in a continued erosion of institutions.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

CPLX 4y ago

I mean the implication here doesn't seem all that subtle. I think he's kind of pointing in the direction of Clarence Thomas's wife, who is a batshit crazy right wing activist that was involved in the events of January 6th. No idea if he's right but it's well within the range of plausibility.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

db65edfc7996 4y ago

>...and have much to lose from this action vs possibly marginal potential upside That would be my assumption as well. Clerking at the Supreme Court seems like one of the top appointments one could possibly achieve. Requiring top tier academics and some number of personal connections to secure the position. This stunt would destroy all of their future prospects.

HWR_14 4y ago
> This stunt would destroy all of their future prospects. Or is a high-risk, high-reward way to launch a political career. I can see someone running for office with this as a cornerstone of their campaign. I don't think it's a good plan, but maybe it is or is perceived to be by the leaker.