Chief Justice John Roberts’ Statement Regarding The Dobbs Leak May 3, 2022 / Jack Marshall What else could he say? Share this:TwitterLinkedInFacebookRedditPrintEmailLike this:Like Loading... Related
26 thoughts on “Chief Justice John Roberts’ Statement Regarding The Dobbs Leak”
Short and to the point. The media should be responsible enough to explain this but they won’t because there’s so much hate to drum up over this.
I think he effectively and efficiently covered all the bases.
He covered all the bases. I hope this investigation by the Chief Marshal of the Court does not come up short.
Interesting choice to confirm the validity of the document.
There were liberals already shrieking (I wish this was an exaggeration) outside of the Supreme Court when this thing leaked.
My girlfriend’s late stepdad said that the Democratic Party had become filled with people who were mentally ill. I thought his assessment was a bit harsh when I first heard it, but the more that the left is taken over by the progressive wing of the party, the more right he seems.
Progressives cannot acknowledge anything but their own strong emotions. And, I think many suffer from anxiety disorders because of helicopter parenting. That’s why they aren’t always able to rationally debate anymore; they are being fueled by pathological anxiety.
For all those claiming everything is an assault on democracy they sure hate having the opportunity to let the people of the various states what they want to do with the abortion issue. Moreover why does an implied right of privacy require that all states must follow the federal standard but enumerated rights can be restricted based on the local jurisdiction. How many have argued that no rights are absolute?
I hope they catch the bastard that leaked this and if appropriate disbarred and enjoined from profiting in anyway from this breach of trust.
I had incorrectly understood that the FBI had become involved in the investigation as to who was behind the leak – this document indicates that the Marshall of the court is going to investigate. What investigative powers does this Marshall have (if it was Jack Marshall, I would be content that the investigation would be comprehensive). Can this Marshall issue subpoena’s etc?
The exact extent of the Chief Marshal’s responsibility to conduct investigations is not clear to me, although the Marshal oversees the US Supreme Court Police, the office itself is primarily a chief administrator position rather than a law enforcement one. The responsibilities of the USSCPD are mainly protective / security services (https://www.policeapp.com/Entry-Level-Supreme-Court-of-the-United-States-Police-DC-Police-Officer-Jobs/1609/) they maintain close liaison with other federal law enforcement agencies with extensive investigative capabilities. I expect the investigation will be conducted under the auspice of the Marshal and not by the Marshal personally.
It’s the equivalent of a mayor saying he has told the police commissioner to look into something. The commissioner won’t do any investigating himself, but he’ll oversee those who do.
That’s my take as well.
I’d not heard of the “Marshall of the Court” before today, but a little quick research shows that it’s exactly what I expected it to be: The “Chief of Police” for a police jurisdiction that is wholly a part of the SCOTUS (analogous to the Capitol Police for Congress).
This is important because the United States Supreme Court Police would be able to perform investigations and be permitted access to confidential Court documents while upholding the principle of Separation of Powers. The FBI, being a part of the Executive Branch, could be considered to be violating Separation of Powers by investigating the Judicial Branch.
Always remember, it’s just one “L”
Thank you, I will. I know that never ever making typos is something you pride yourself on, Mr. Marshal.
You won’t believe how many times I’m asked whether my last name has one or two “Ls.” And I point out that nobody has the last name with one L. I don’t think it’s a typo; it’s genuine confusion between the surname and the noun. I can help out with confusion. Typos are harder.
Given the relatively small number of people with access to draft opinions, I suspect that the investigation will be concluded fairly quickly. The pool of possible leakers is necessarily pretty small. In fact, I suspect that if it goes on more than a couple of weeks, the leaker will identify him/her/xe/xirself.
At some point, federal law enforcement should simply ask everyone who could’ve been involved if they were involved in the leak. At that point, a lie becomes a felony, anyone in the legal community would know that, and I suspect they would prefer to come forward.
I don’t really see any US laws that could otherwise be charged in this case without stretching them into a pretzel. I’ve seen some theories of prosecution, but I don’t buy any of them. But if the leaker comes forward, my supposition is that whoever it is will not ultimately be prosecuted. They’ll need another profession, but I’m sure the Left will provide that gleefully to the “whistleblower.”
And our system of government will suffer yet another body blow.
Of course, if the leaker is an actual justice, I have no idea what would happen. I doubt they could be successfully impeached unless they are a conservative — the Left in it’s current “righteous outrage” would refuse to vote for impeachment if only to anger the Right, and the resulting scandal would be hard to fathom. But I don’t expect that to be the case.
Internet sleuths are sleuthing. Or are they journalists doing journalism. Anyway, here’s one theory:
Note that he says this is not proof and is only speculation. The information presented is publicly available background information and contains no personal contact information.
Speculating it is a specific person without good evidence is a crappy thing to do. This is career destroying stuff here, and shouldn’t be taken lightly.
I agree completely. She’s not a “public person” so this could be a slam-dunk case of defamation.
Opinions of speculated likelihood are defamation?
If this isn’t good evidence, then why would speculation destroy a career?
Elsewhere on the internet I’ve heard rumblings that this leaker is protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act; I disagree with that assessment.
Applying the Whistleblower Protection Act to the action of this individual(s) leaking this draft to the press is a bastardization of the act, it’s an extrapolation to absurdity.
The draft opinion that was leaked was not a “violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety”, it was a confidential opinion (not even a final opinion) circulated between Supreme Court Justices. Confidentiality is paramount to the function of the Supreme Court of the United States! The individual that leaked this draft is an unethical political activist that’s trying to politicize and undermine the Supreme Court. The leaker is a real political scumbag that needs to be removed from the court and relegated to cleaning the outhouse (5 gallon bucket with a toilet seat) on inflight rusty old DC3’s that’s transporting rubber dog shit from China. This is not an honored whistleblower deserving legal protections, this is a rationalizing political hack*.
Something inline with Will Chamberlain’s opinion that Tim LeVier shared above; since undermining the Supreme Court seems to be a core goal of illiberal extreme “progressives” (progressives is an oxymoron, they are actually regressive), I’d put dollars to donuts that this leaker is an irrational 21st century social justice warrior, a.k.a. an illiberal extreme “progressive” Democrat. Illiberal extreme “progressive” Democrat’s seem to have given up on the the justice system and our Courts of Law and are in favor of using the 21st century cancel culture’s Court of Public Opinion (that’s based on pure emotion, zero critical thinking and absolutely no logic) to intimidate the public and the courts to get their way.
In my opinion; there needs to be a special prosecutor put in place to investigate this egregious breach of trust and unbridled betrayal of the confidences within the institution of the Supreme Court to find out who all is directly and indirectly involved in this intentional politicization of the Supreme Court. Do you want political activist to destroy our justice system? This kind of political activism intentionally politicizing and therefore undermining our non-political third branch of government cannot stand unpunished otherwise it will permanently tarnish and undermine the Supreme Court from this point on.
*Political Hack is a morally bankrupt person that has actually chosen to be a political tool, a political attack dog, a “hired gun”. The intentions of a political hack are aligned with victory NOT personal conviction, ethics or morals. The purpose of a political hack is to gin up hate for their political opposition and detract them from their messaging using any and all means necessary. The ends justifies the means is a core belief of a political hack.
Remember: The January 6 riot was an insurrection because it had the potential to destabilize a sacred federal government process.
Someone tell me how this act wasn’t intended to destabilize the SCOTUS process and why that process isn’t as sacred? If Jan 6 rioters are insurrectionists, then this leaker is an insurrectionist, even if the leaker ends up being a clerk of a conservative justice who just couldn’t hold in their personal glee.
Tim LeVier wrote, “Someone tell me how this act wasn’t intended to destabilize the SCOTUS process and why that process isn’t as sacred? If Jan 6 rioters are insurrectionists, then this leaker is an insurrectionist…”
That’s an interesting way of looking and comparing things but no, the leaker is not an “insurrectionist”. What we don’t know is if the ginned up reactions from pro-abortion activists will elevate to the level of insurrection but if it does you can be damned certain that the media will call it something like Michael West wrote “bold citizens taking a stand for free speech and liberty” or Steve-O-in-NJ “mostly peaceful” reply to Michael West’s comment.
That’s ridiculous. There was no crime or misconduct to blow a whistle on. Won’t fly, even a little.
Jack Marshall wrote, “That’s ridiculous. There was no crime or misconduct to blow a whistle on. Won’t fly, even a little.”
But if a Liberal thinks it, it must be right. 😉
Liberal Magical Thinking: is thinking that when an illiberal thinks a thought, any thought, then that thought is automatically considered logical and should be presented as truth.