So, who leaked the Roe v. Wade Decision?

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

It may not be a high priority for "most" voters. But in the highly polarized politics of the U.S., where a difference between only a couple of percentage points can mean the difference between victory or defeat, even a small disadvantage can be a problem.

Women will lose control over what they want to do with their bodies, and many (e.g. poor women who lack the resources to travel to a smarter part of the country) will be force to carry a fetus to term just because "god said so".

Sounds like you're turning them into baby-factories to me.


Maybe, maybe not. But even if it is a tactical mistake to protest outside the home of Drunky McRapeface, it is a completely separate question from "why would republicans concentrate on the leak instead of reaching the goal of turning women into baby factories".


Yes, some Americans are idiots. That doesn't mean that at least some (even the dumb ones) aren't going to be impacted by what they will be hearing in the media between now and the election. Plenty of news reports will talk about abortion rights.

As for "the majority believing overturning Row would make abortion legal

To the highlighted bit, unfortunately, the voters that do care about abortion have already sorted and already turn out for elections. There may be some marginal change in voting patterns, I doubt it will have much impact. All though, if I'm wrong its because prior to this, the Dems were generally not very motivated to vote and not especially enthusiastic about their own candidates. This may change the first bit.

Second highlighted bit,

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by bruto

But the article I cited above casts doubt on that theory on the presumption that if someone had legitimate access to the file, it would likely have been as a PDF, not a photocopy of a printout. The presumption, I think, is that whoever sent the file either did not have access to it in the system, or want it to appear that they did not.

Any law clerk would know that pdfs contain metadata, but wouldn’t be confident that they could remove all the metadata. A copy or scan will only ever lead to the copier or scanner and any email associated with that scan. For a non-techie lawyer that would be the safest way to cover their tracks. I’m sure someone who really understands the tech would do it differently, but we’re talking about history and psychology majors, for the most part.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Any law clerk would know that pdfs contain metadata, but wouldn’t be confident that they could remove all the metadata. A copy or scan will only ever lead to the copier or scanner and any email associated with that scan. For a non-techie lawyer that would be the safest way to cover their tracks. I’m sure someone who really understands the tech would do it differently, but we’re talking about history and psychology majors, for the most part.

Any journalist worth their salt is not going to straight upload whatever leak they receive. Printing out documents and scanning is standard "protect your sources" practice.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Any journalist worth their salt is not going to straight upload whatever leak they receive. Printing out documents and scanning is standard "protect your sources" practice.

Good point. As a lawyer I wouldn’t bet my career on a journalist getting that right, though.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Good point. As a lawyer I wouldn’t bet my career on a journalist getting that right, though.

Certainly not, but I'm suggesting there's not much point in trying to analyze the leaked document's appearance. Odds are very good it looks the way it does because of how the journalist handled the document, not the sender.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by ahhell

Quote:

It may not be a high priority for "most" voters. But in the highly polarized politics of the U.S., where a difference between only a couple of percentage points can mean the difference between victory or defeat, even a small disadvantage can be a problem.

To the highlighted bit, unfortunately, the voters that do care about abortion have already sorted and already turn out for elections. There may be some marginal change in voting patterns, I doubt it will have much impact. All though, if I'm wrong its because prior to this, the Dems were generally not very motivated to vote and not especially enthusiastic about their own candidates. This may change the first bit.

Personally I think "the left" (and moderates) got too complacent. They wanted abortion rights, but Roe had stood so long they didn't really think it was at risk. So, they didn't vote. Or they didn't consider it a factor in deciding who to vote for. (Look at some of the left-wing people who didn't vote for Hillary in 2016, but voted for the Green party instead, thinking "she didn't earn my vote". I wonder how many of those people would now like to have a do-over now that they can see what Trump was really like, and how abortion rights are now at risk.)

Now that they see that republicans really can force women into being baby-factories, they may actually be more willing to be involved.

Its easer to get engaged when you see an actual threat, than when that threat is hypothetical.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Certainly not, but I'm suggesting there's not much point in trying to analyze the leaked document's appearance. Odds are very good it looks the way it does because of how the journalist handled the document, not the sender.

Agreeing vehemently.

[ZiprHead]

Was it a leak or was it a trial balloon?

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by ZiprHead

Was it a leak or was it a trial balloon?

In cases like this SCOTUS has an appellate role, it is not involved in the trial.

They didn’t cover balloons in con-law, so I’m less certain about that aspect of your question.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Quote:

Was it a leak or was it a trial balloon?

In cases like this SCOTUS has an appellate role, it is not involved in the trial.

They didn’t cover balloons in con-law, so I’m less certain about that aspect of your question.

I don't think the previous poster was suggesting there was a "trial" involved (in a legal/courtroom sense.)

The term "trial balloon" is more of a political thing....
From: Wikipedia
A trial balloon, or kite-flying (used in the UK and elsewhere), is information sent out to the media in order to observe the reaction of an audience. It can be used by companies sending out press releases to judge reaction by customers, or it can be used by politicians who deliberately leak information on a policy change under consideration...

So the theory might be that the Supreme court hadn't officially decided to overturn Roe. But, they leaked an early draft suggesting they did, to see how people react. This would allow them to either 1) change their mind about the final decision if the reactions are too extreme, or 2) Modify the text of the decision in an attempt to make it seem less insane. (For example, take out the reference to lawyers who prosecuted witchcraft).

I don't think its likely.... just explaining what the reasoning might be.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Certainly not, but I'm suggesting there's not much point in trying to analyze the leaked document's appearance. Odds are very good it looks the way it does because of how the journalist handled the document, not the sender.

Its possible that it is a bit of both...

It does have elements of having been printed (including staple marks) and subsequently scanned in. This suggests that politico either 1) received the documents in hardcopy form, or 2) whomever sent it had scanned in their own copy to send to politico. It is unlikely that Politco received an electronic copy of the original draft in whatever word processing file format they use, since printing and scanning it in would seem like extra effort resulting in a worse result.

[Norman Alexander]

Originally Posted by Bogative

Elizabeth Deutsch

Inventing dots to join them up to not make a picture. Good work.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

It does have elements of having been printed (including staple marks) and subsequently scanned in. This suggests that politico either 1) received the documents in hardcopy form, or 2) whomever sent it had scanned in their own copy to send to politico. It is unlikely that Politco received an electronic copy of the original draft in whatever word processing file format they use, since printing and scanning it in would seem like extra effort resulting in a worse result.

I'm saying this is absolutely something a journalist would do to be sure they obliterated all digital metadata. Printing and rescanning (even multiple iterations) is a well-known practice. Protecting sources is more important than uploading maximum quality images of text documents. Journalists that burn their sources, even accidentally, take huge reputational damage.

The intercept's guide to leaking documents recommends printing and re-scanning explicitly as a method to destroy traceability.

Quote:

You could also choose to go analog: print out a copy of the documents and then re-scan them before submitting them to us (but be careful to securely shred your printout and not leave traces in your printer’s/scanner’s memory).

https://theintercept.com/2015/01/11/...the-intercept/

ETA: People still mock (rightly) the intercept for bungling the Reality Winner leak.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

I don't think the previous poster was suggesting there was a "trial" involved (in a legal/courtroom sense.)

I think that Dr. Keith was making what is often termed a "joke".

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I think that Dr. Keith was making what is often termed a "joke".

They don’t all land.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

They don’t all land.

They all land somewhere. Sooner or later they pop and end in the ocean, and sea turtles choke on them.......oh....wait. Never mind.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

They all land somewhere. Sooner or later they pop and end in the ocean, and sea turtles choke on them.......oh....wait. Never mind.

Thank you for this valuable reminder.

[ZiprHead]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

I don't think the previous poster was suggesting there was a "trial" involved (in a legal/courtroom sense.)

The term "trial balloon" is more of a political thing....
From: Wikipedia
A trial balloon, or kite-flying (used in the UK and elsewhere), is information sent out to the media in order to observe the reaction of an audience. It can be used by companies sending out press releases to judge reaction by customers, or it can be used by politicians who deliberately leak information on a policy change under consideration...

So the theory might be that the Supreme court hadn't officially decided to overturn Roe. But, they leaked an early draft suggesting they did, to see how people react. This would allow them to either 1) change their mind about the final decision if the reactions are too extreme, or 2) Modify the text of the decision in an attempt to make it seem less insane. (For example, take out the reference to lawyers who prosecuted witchcraft).

I don't think its likely.... just explaining what the reasoning might be.

Thank you. That is the correct meaning.

[Armitage72]

There's a conspiracy theory that George Soros' son was behind the leak, because the Soros family is responsible for everything.

Quote:

The junk news website News Punch, a prolific source of disinformation, added its two cents on May 8 in a story titled, “Soros behind Roe v. Wade SCOTUS Leak – Media Blackout.” Invoking the Soros family is a common antisemitic trope often pushed by the far-right that plays into baseless conspiratorial claims about Jewish elites wielding enormous but covert power.

The allegation presented by News Punch is that Alexander Soros (son of billionaire philanthropist George Soros) was behind the leak because he “registered a pro-abortion protest website two weeks before the Roe v. Wade SCOTUS leak.” The protest in question is the “Jewish Rally For Abortion Rights,” which is hosted by the National Council of Jewish Women. The only connection to Alexander Soros is that one the the rally’s 40 co-sponsors is Bend the Arc: Jewish Action. Soros serves as a board member for Bend the Arc.

Sounds legit to me.

[shemp]

Of course, they don't explain how he came to be in possession of the draft. But those Jews are very wily and crafty! I'm sure they used some sinister plan involving the Jewish Nazis running Ukraine to steal it!

[Nosi]

Originally Posted by shemp

Of course, they don't explain how he came to be in possession of the draft. But those Jews are very wily and crafty! I'm sure they used some sinister plan involving the Jewish Nazis running Ukraine to steal it!

He had a transporter in his pocket... Silly goose!

[ZiprHead]

Originally Posted by Nosi

He had a transporter in his pocket... Silly goose!

Nah, it's that famous Jewish space laser.