If the snarky Supreme Court leaker thought they’d be pulling a fast one on the American public, think again.
After all, a leak of this magnitude has not yet occurred before with the Court, which means it is only natural for such an event to take place while the United States is literally led by an Easter Bunny.
“We are very much in uncharted territory here,” remarked Erwin Chemerinsky, who serves as the Dean of the law school at the University of California at Berkeley, underscoring the gravity of the situation.
“Never before, to my knowledge, has a Supreme Court opinion been leaked like this,” Chemerinsky continued, “so never before has there been an investigation like this.”
On May 4, Politico noted that “there are virtually no precedents for Roberts’ plans to identify the 98-page document’s path from the high court to the pages of POLITICO, a disclosure he termed a “betrayal” of the institution’s trust.”
Furthermore, the publication noted, at that point in time, that the details of the investigation would remain elusive.
“While Roberts indicated he has authorized the marshal of the Supreme Court to investigate the breach of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion, he offered no details about how the inquiry would proceed,” Politicoadded.
As of early June, it is now clear which actions Roberts will be taking, and he is not messing around.
Specifically, Roberts is not only calling for all the law clerks to turn over cell phone records, but also to sign affidavits. Should a law clerk be absurd or arrogant enough to lie in an affidavit, then they may well face criminal charges in addition to professional disbarment or other comparable activity.
“The affidavit may be a greater concern for the leaker,” legal expert Jonathan Turley declared, “after all, the leaker may have avoided using the cellphone or creating digital tracks. The affidavit is a sworn statement to federal investigators. If false, it could constitute a federal crime.”
One can only hope that Democrats will become as zealous about Supreme Court leaks as they are about federalizing elections.
At least Republicans have taken more provocative action, which automatically shows the difference in values between both parties.
Specifically, the “Leaker Accountability Act,” introduced by Louisiana Representative Mike Johnson underscores the extent to which Supreme Court leaks are not, under any circumstance, acceptable.
Especially when intimidation is the end goal.
“The unauthorized leak of the draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health constitutes a grave breach of judicial ethics and a deliberate attack on the independence of the Supreme Court,” Johnson declared.
The text of his bill is also direct and concise, leaving little room for legal misinterpretation:
“Whoever, while serving as an officer or employee of the Supreme Court, violates this section by knowingly publishing, divulging, disclosing, or making known in any manner or to any extent not authorized by law any confidential information coming to that officer or employee in the course of the employment or official duties of that officer or employee shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years or fined under this title, or both.
Amazing, isn’t it. Actual law clerks at the Supreme Court, if not the justices themselves, apparently now have to have laws drawn up to assure basic ethics and accountability.
Johnson, who also serves as the House Republican Vice Chairman, noted that it was unfortunate, yet “necessary” for the legislation to proceed in light of the leak.
“This legislation is now, unfortunately, a necessary step to discourage future such attempts to intimidate justices during their deliberative process and restore independence to the Court so that it can ensure the American people are afforded equal and impartial justice under the law,” Johnson continued, “the institution of the Court has been damaged and we must do what we can to try to repair it.”
What a “United” state the nation has been in ever since Democrats took over.
Author: Jane Jones
These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.
To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].
Family-Friendly Content
Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More
These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.
To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].
Family-Friendly Content
Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More
