5 ms·

I imagine the Supreme Court is an environment where everyone prints everything. Everyone is in their 50s (some in their 70s) and they probably print and annotat

I imagine the Supreme Court is an environment where everyone prints everything. Everyone is in their 50s (some in their 70s) and they probably print and annotate everything manually. I imagine there are copies of everything floating around and picking one up and making another copy wouldn't be all that difficult. I also wouldn't assume Politico has full staff in office yet, and it wouldn't surprise me if they made a scan-of-a-handed-off-copy on a personal device to get to their web staff. It's pretty brave of them putting it online as a scan still, I think I'd have retyped or taken closer care to crop out the edges and all that just in case (source: Am journalist.) But maybe they handed it to someone in digital forensics and ensured any sort of microdots were stripped out. I worry about words being switched on a per-copy basis as a trap (Tom Clancy used it as a plot device ages ago and it stuck with me,) so maybe they knew it was a copy that floated around and couldn't be traced, or they're not as paranoid as me.

CryptoPunk 4y ago
>>I worry about words being switched on a per-copy basis as a trap So you support leaking Supreme Court draft opinions and prefer leakers not be caught? You realize the consequences of legitimizing this for the rule of law, right? If the law is only respected and observed when it agrees with one political platform, it's no law at all.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- bigfudge 4y ago
  This is already a much bigger problem than this leak. Selective enforcement of drug laws is rife in the us. Are you also concerned about that?
  - CryptoPunk 4y ago
    A leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion is an extraordinary breach of judicial confidentiality protocols and severely damages the integrity of the highest court. Are you saying that the rule of law is already so degraded in other areas that further degrading it with this kind of action is of no consequence and therefore if it happens to advance what you consider to be a good policy then we should welcome it?
    - trasz 4y ago
      Given that it all revolves around allowing states to turn a Christian fundamentalist idea into a criminal law, I’d say the idea of “rule of law” is long gone.
      - CryptoPunk 4y ago
        You've found a way to rationalize undermining rule of law, by arguing that this exercise of the law is.. not the law. Like I said at the start: If the law is only respected and observed when it agrees with one political platform, it's no law at all.
        trasz 4y ago
        The idea of keeping religion out of law is not "one political platform". If the law is working against the society - like in this case - then it needs to be fixed, not blindly obeyed.
        CryptoPunk 4y ago
        There are more than religious arguments for prohibiting abortion and the Supreme Court draft opinion on Roe vs Wade has zero religious argument contain therein. Beyond that, the law says the Supreme Court and legislature decides what is or isn't a violation of the separation of Church and State, not activists deciding for themselves what law should or should not be observed. >>If the law is working against the society - like in this case - then it needs to be fixed, not blindly obeyed. There is a legal process for changing the law. What you are attempting to justify is undermining the rule of law with haphazard rationalizations.
        trasz 4y ago
        No, there are no logically valid, non-religious arguments for prohibiting abortion. That’s the point: abortion ban is not “a view”; it’s a moral equivalent of antivax. It means one is either misinformed, or lacks basic ethics. You’ve just demonstrated that yourself, by ignoring the fact that the draft opinion quoted a professional witch hunter and marital rape apologist. Beyond that - the courts exist for a reason, because of the mandate given by society. When the society realizes they aren’t working properly, it should be possible to fix said courts. And no, in US there is no working legal process for fixing the court, even in very obvious cases, like a judge protecting its wife, or just being a straight out human waste, like Scalia.
Ekaros 4y ago
I wouldn't worry about words being switched. These are legislative documents and risk of such actions having long reaching consequences is real. Just think that such error would end up being released stored and distributed long term. It might change entire meaning of sections thus maybe even change some future lawsuits, not something you want to risk.

CryptoPunk 4y ago

>>I worry about words being switched on a per-copy basis as a trap So you support leaking Supreme Court draft opinions and prefer leakers not be caught? You realize the consequences of legitimizing this for the rule of law, right? If the law is only respected and observed when it agrees with one political platform, it's no law at all.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bigfudge 4y ago
This is already a much bigger problem than this leak. Selective enforcement of drug laws is rife in the us. Are you also concerned about that?
- CryptoPunk 4y ago
  A leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion is an extraordinary breach of judicial confidentiality protocols and severely damages the integrity of the highest court. Are you saying that the rule of law is already so degraded in other areas that further degrading it with this kind of action is of no consequence and therefore if it happens to advance what you consider to be a good policy then we should welcome it?
  - trasz 4y ago
    Given that it all revolves around allowing states to turn a Christian fundamentalist idea into a criminal law, I’d say the idea of “rule of law” is long gone.
    - CryptoPunk 4y ago
      You've found a way to rationalize undermining rule of law, by arguing that this exercise of the law is.. not the law. Like I said at the start: If the law is only respected and observed when it agrees with one political platform, it's no law at all.
      - trasz 4y ago
        The idea of keeping religion out of law is not "one political platform". If the law is working against the society - like in this case - then it needs to be fixed, not blindly obeyed.
        CryptoPunk 4y ago
        There are more than religious arguments for prohibiting abortion and the Supreme Court draft opinion on Roe vs Wade has zero religious argument contain therein. Beyond that, the law says the Supreme Court and legislature decides what is or isn't a violation of the separation of Church and State, not activists deciding for themselves what law should or should not be observed. >>If the law is working against the society - like in this case - then it needs to be fixed, not blindly obeyed. There is a legal process for changing the law. What you are attempting to justify is undermining the rule of law with haphazard rationalizations.
        trasz 4y ago
        No, there are no logically valid, non-religious arguments for prohibiting abortion. That’s the point: abortion ban is not “a view”; it’s a moral equivalent of antivax. It means one is either misinformed, or lacks basic ethics. You’ve just demonstrated that yourself, by ignoring the fact that the draft opinion quoted a professional witch hunter and marital rape apologist. Beyond that - the courts exist for a reason, because of the mandate given by society. When the society realizes they aren’t working properly, it should be possible to fix said courts. And no, in US there is no working legal process for fixing the court, even in very obvious cases, like a judge protecting its wife, or just being a straight out human waste, like Scalia.

Ekaros 4y ago

I wouldn't worry about words being switched. These are legislative documents and risk of such actions having long reaching consequences is real. Just think that such error would end up being released stored and distributed long term. It might change entire meaning of sections thus maybe even change some future lawsuits, not something you want to risk.