So, who leaked the Roe v. Wade Decision?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by shemp

THE GINNI HYPOTHESIS

The plot thickens.

Could be Ginni shared it with someone outside the court and that person passed it on.

Have we considered that?

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Brainster

I doubt you could find anybody on any side of the abortion debate who thinks the leak is a bigger issue than the overturning of Roe.

Don Jr.’s cocaine rant?

https://twitter.com/grantstern/statu...008849408?s=21

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Donal

Genuinely believe it? I dunno. People who are acting like it's a bigger deal? You must be kidding.

“You’ve been having an affair! Your email is full of sexted pics of you and your lover!”

“You READ my email!??! What a horrible breach of trust!!!!”

[arthwollipot]

They're really calling the anonymous leaker "Dark Robe"?

[Hellbound]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

They're really calling the anonymous leaker "Dark Robe"?

Sounds like the villain in a Spaceballs sequel.


Sent from my volcanic island lair using carrier pigeon.

[Robin]

I still say Alito. He probably didn't pass it directly to Politico, this would have been done through an intermediary.

The "rub it in your face" language suggests he is mightily pleased with it and probably all conservatives want to put as much time between the release of the ruling and the mid terms as possible.

They say the ship of state is the only ship that leaks from the top and I expect this also applies to the Judicial Branch.

[The Great Zaganza]

The question in my mind is: how direct was the Leak? Was a member/associate of the Court in contact with WSJ/Politico, or did an outsider somehow have access to the information and passed it on?

In the former case, I assume it was a pro-choice proponent, in the latter some anti-choicer.

[Susheel]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Could be Ginni shared it with someone outside the court and that person passed it on.

Have we considered that?

I suggested this earlier on:

Quote:

Informed speculation? How about this... She got hold of document through hubby dear wanted to gloat shared it among her sisterhood of Phyllis Schaffly. Maybe someone in the second or third tier of the network inadvertantly Or purposely decided it required greater coverage.

[Susheel]

Originally Posted by Brainster

I doubt you could find anybody on any side of the abortion debate who thinks the leak is a bigger issue than the overturning of Roe.

Well, observed reality belies your naïve fantasy.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

“You’ve been having an affair! Your email is full of sexted pics of you and your lover!”

“You READ my email!??! What a horrible breach of trust!!!!”

"You used your office's control of foreign aid as leverage to pressure an ally to provide you with a personal benefit"

"Who leaked that?!?!?! That is a national security threat!"

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Susheel

I suggested this earlier on:

You also described the hypothesis better than I did.

It really could have been either side.

The alt-right might have been trying to lock the Zealot-5 in given it might make it harder for any of them to back down. Or it could have been excited spreading the word like Susheel hypothesizes.

The 'libruls' could have leaked it to let the country and especially the 2022 voters know what was going on. It also resulted in an analysis of Alito's reasoning by the whole country and not just the SCOTUS justices themselves.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The alt-right might have been trying to lock the Zealot-5 in given it might make it harder for any of them to back down. Or it could have been excited spreading the word like Susheel hypothesizes.

The 'libruls' could have leaked it to let the country and especially the 2022 voters know what was going on. It also resulted in an analysis of Alito's reasoning by the whole country and not just the SCOTUS justices themselves.

There are other advantages to the alt-right/disadvantages to the liberals in leaking the document...

- Assuming the court would have officially released its decision this spring or summer, the voters would have known (and adjusted their votes) prior to the midterms regardless of the leak. But since it is getting leaked early, it gives more time for other distractions to pop up between now and the election, diverting voter attention away from the abortion debate. "Roe v Wade? That was 6 months ago... now we want to discuss the economy/Ukraine/etc."

- The leak itself becomes a distraction from the loss of reproductive rights

[Nosi]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Love the poll. Not sure why she'd do it unless she was so excited she couldn't wait to tell everyone.

There are a number of law clerks and their staff. I'm not sure who all had access. Given no one has ever leaked such a preliminary document before it is possible it was handled carelessly.

OTOH, if lady GT did leak it and gets caught then yay for the trouble it will cause Mr CT.

I hope the Thomas family gets pan fried.

[bruto]

I just saw this rather interesting article on the leak:

https://matthewbutterick.com/chron/w...eaked-pdf.html

[shemp]

Originally Posted by bruto

I just saw this rather interesting article on the leak:

https://matthewbutterick.com/chron/w...eaked-pdf.html

That was a great read. I've worked in typography for many years, and really appreciated an expert typographer's viewpoint on this. It certainly tightens the number of people who could have leaked it, and I'm sticking with my opinion that it was Ginni Thomas.

[Lennart Hyland]

Our all-time favorite Ted Cruz predicts a left-wing law clerk to Sotamayor leaked the draft.
And when confronted by reporters on why he thinks he knows this, he answered:
"Because I'm not a moron. Because I live on planet Earth ..."

https://www.businessinsider.com/cruz...22-5?r=US&IR=T

So now we know close thread!

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by bruto

I just saw this rather interesting article on the leak:

https://matthewbutterick.com/chron/w...eaked-pdf.html

I think the author overlooks one possibility, and, naturally, it's the possibility I lean toward. The author is assuming that the motive of the leaker is to influence the opinion, and based on that, reaches a reasonable conclusion. However, I don't think that was the motive at all.


I believe that someone who had access to the document had very strong opinions about abortion, and was very much against overturning Roe v. Wade. If that opinion gets published, on the day it is published, abortion becomes illegal in several states. Now, suppose a woman has an appointment for an abortion on Tuesday, and this opinion is published on a Monday. The woman shows up, and can't get the aboriton.

I think the leak was done as a warning. I think it was done to make sure that access to abortion became front page news and people were aware of the thread. Pregnant women who were seeking abortions would know to hurry up and make it happen while it was still legal. State legislatures where abortion was supported, but which would revert to pre-Roe statutes that had never been repealed would know to get to work on fast track legislation securing the right to abortion prior to the publication of the opinion. Primary voters in states where primaries were being held would know to push abortion rights to the front burner and examine the candidates' opinion on abortion rights.

Am I right about that? There's no way to know right now, and it's possible we'll never know.

[shemp]

Originally Posted by Lennart Hyland

Our all-time favorite Ted Cruz predicts a left-wing law clerk to Sotamayor leaked the draft.
And when confronted by reporters on why he thinks he knows this, he answered:
"Because I'm not a moron. Because I live on planet Earth ..."

https://www.businessinsider.com/cruz...22-5?r=US&IR=T

So now we know close thread!

Only one of his two statements is true, and sometimes I'm not even so sure of that.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Lennart Hyland

Our all-time favorite Ted Cruz predicts a left-wing law clerk to Sotamayor leaked the draft.
And when confronted by reporters on why he thinks he knows this, he answered:
"Because I'm not a moron. Because I live on planet Earth ..."

https://www.businessinsider.com/cruz...22-5?r=US&IR=T

So now we know close thread!

Given on Ted Cruz's history, this practically guarantees that absolutely none of Sotomayor's clerks was in any way involved.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I think the author overlooks one possibility, and, naturally, it's the possibility I lean toward. The author is assuming that the motive of the leaker is to influence the opinion, and based on that, reaches a reasonable conclusion. However, I don't think that was the motive at all.


I believe that someone who had access to the document had very strong opinions about abortion, and was very much against overturning Roe v. Wade. If that opinion gets published, on the day it is published, abortion becomes illegal in several states. Now, suppose a woman has an appointment for an abortion on Tuesday, and this opinion is published on a Monday. The woman shows up, and can't get the aboriton.

I think the leak was done as a warning. I think it was done to make sure that access to abortion became front page news and people were aware of the thread. Pregnant women who were seeking abortions would know to hurry up and make it happen while it was still legal. State legislatures where abortion was supported, but which would revert to pre-Roe statutes that had never been repealed would know to get to work on fast track legislation securing the right to abortion prior to the publication of the opinion. Primary voters in states where primaries were being held would know to push abortion rights to the front burner and examine the candidates' opinion on abortion rights.

Am I right about that? There's no way to know right now, and it's possible we'll never know.

I considered that possibility, and given the actual reaction that has occurred, you might be right, although I'm not so sure about the fine timing issue. It certainly has caused a lot of reaction, and if some on the court are unsure of what to do, the tide of opinion might be important.

But that does not obviate the possibility that a right wing idiot like Ginni Thomas leaked it thinking it would embarrass waverers back into the fold or something.

But indeed we may never know.

[Donal]

So, the fact that they are name-dropping a person who is not a public figure and did nothing to make herself one (that we know of), does that count as doxxing?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by Donal

So, the fact that they are name-dropping a person who is not a public figure and did nothing to make herself one (that we know of), does that count as doxxing?

Might want to just report the post or say who you are talking about. Ginni Thomas certainly is a public figure. Someone else has been mentioned but it's not obvious that you mean that someone else.

[JoeMorgue]

From a pure MA perspective I thought only Doxxing members was covered

[SuburbanTurkey]

I find the idea of a SCOTUS clerk not being a public figure pretty insane, but I guess that's par for course for the absurd notion that the SCOTUS is apolitical. The Justices and their clerks are 100% political operators at the highest level, the idea that they can work privately and insulated from the impacts of their decisions is absurd.

The reason these allegations about some clerk are unethical is not because they're "doxxing" a non-public person, it's because these right wing freaks are making the allegation (and steering the vast right wing hate machine) towards this liberal clerk based solely on baseless speculation.

[ahhell]

Not Ginny Thomas

Even if she gave it to a reporter, still wouldn't be her, it would be her husband.

Most speculation I've heard has suggested its probably a liberal clerk of a liberal Justice. I give it 67.5% chance of that and 32.5% chance of a conservative clerk of a conservative Justice. Even that level of certainty is overstating it, assuming there haven't been any revelations over the weekend.

I will bet many dollars it was not a Justice.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Might want to just report the post or say who you are talking about. Ginni Thomas certainly is a public figure. Someone else has been mentioned but it's not obvious that you mean that someone else.

I'm referring to the GQP types who are naming that court clerk.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I find the idea of a SCOTUS clerk not being a public figure pretty insane, but I guess that's par for course for the absurd notion that the SCOTUS is apolitical. The Justices and their clerks are 100% political operators at the highest level, the idea that they can work privately and insulated from the impacts of their decisions is absurd.

The reason these allegations about some clerk are unethical is not because they're "doxxing" a non-public person, it's because these right wing freaks are making the allegation (and steering the vast right wing hate machine) towards this liberal clerk based solely on baseless speculation.

For the most part, I agree. I just find it amusing that the same people who think it's doxxing to post the website of the business run by a well known political "influencer" but not to publicly name someone when 1) said person does not have a public-facing job or go out in public and 2) there is no evidence to support the accusations.

But, ya, the whole thing is manufactured drama to keep the conversation off the ruling tiself.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by ahhell

Most speculation I've heard has suggested its probably a liberal clerk of a liberal Justice.

Where is this "most speculation" coming from?

Keep in mind that the people most interested in identifying the leaker are those on the right (who want to distract people from the ruling itself.) So they have vested interest in claiming the leak was from "the left".

On the other hand, people on the political left are probably more concerned about what the court ruling says. They are going to talk less about "who leaked" and more about "Women are losing rights".

This is going to mean that more of the speculation will sound like "some liberal did it" simply because those with opposing opinions have more important things to talk about.

[Meadmaker]

I don't understand why people think that those on the right "want to distract people from the ruling itself".

What little I've seen from the right, they seem perfectly happy to talk about it. I think at least some of them are taking victory laps.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I don't understand why people think that those on the right "want to distract people from the ruling itself".

What little I've seen from the right, they seem perfectly happy to talk about it. I think at least some of them are taking victory laps.

Shh!, its a sekret, nobody knows the American conservatives have wanted to overturn Roe V Wade for 50 years?

Seriously, though, I don't get it either. To most folks on the right, overturning roe is just not a controversy. The only controversy is the leak. There is some debate on the margins of the leaked draft. How far it actually does in calling into question other precedents for instance, how much different is it that the final ruling, etc.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Where is this "most speculation" coming from?

Keep in mind that the people most interested in identifying the leaker are those on the right (who want to distract people from the ruling itself.) So they have vested interest in claiming the leak was from "the left".

On the other hand, people on the political left are probably more concerned about what the court ruling says. They are going to talk less about "who leaked" and more about "Women are losing rights".

This is going to mean that more of the speculation will sound like "some liberal did it" simply because those with opposing opinions have more important things to talk about.

Highlighted bit, nope, they do not. They just don't see much to talk about regarding the ruling, especially considering its not actually the ruling but a draft from two months ago. You aren't wrong about who's speculating on the leak though. So, there is some selection bias there.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I don't understand why people think that those on the right "want to distract people from the ruling itself".

What little I've seen from the right, they seem perfectly happy to talk about it. I think at least some of them are taking victory laps.

I suspect it depends on the right-wing person, and their target audience. A hard-core "true believer" anti-abortionist talking to a room full of evangelicals might be willing to gloat about "stopping the evil abortionists".

But, many republicans probably care less about abortion from a "saving babies" perspective, and more from a "we can gain power by appealing to evangelicals". But now that Roe looks to be overturned, there is a possibility of significant blow-back, as most people favor keeping Roe intact (and it will certainly galvanize opposition). Putting more emphasis on "the leak" and less on "we're condemning women to being baby-factories" would be a way to minimize the blowback.

[JoeMorgue]

Crazy theory.

It wasn't an intentional leak but some kind of accidental one.

Like is there an actual "Deep Throat" style anonymous person associated with this that we know exists and we just haven't identified or did someone at New York Chicago Washington Times Post Tribune get an e-mail with an attachment from somewhere?

[shemp]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Crazy theory.

It wasn't an intentional leak but some kind of accidental one.

Like is there an actual "Deep Throat" style anonymous person associated with this that we know exists and we just haven't identified or did someone at New York Chicago Washington Times Post Tribune get an e-mail with an attachment from somewhere?

Yeah, like someone left a paper copy on a bus or in an Uber? Nah, this was intentional.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by shemp

Yeah, like someone left a paper copy on a bus or in an Uber? Nah, this was intentional.

Nothing on that level, but I'm assuming SCOTUS has some kind of routine, official correspondence with the press so probably has channels already meant for that and some SCOTUS clerk sending the wrong file to some News Intern doesn't strike me as impossible.

Again thinking out loud more than proposing an official theory.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

I suspect it depends on the right-wing person, and their target audience. A hard-core "true believer" anti-abortionist talking to a room full of evangelicals might be willing to gloat about "stopping the evil abortionists".

But, many republicans probably care less about abortion from a "saving babies" perspective, and more from a "we can gain power by appealing to evangelicals". But now that Roe looks to be overturned, there is a possibility of significant blow-back, as most people favor keeping Roe intact (and it will certainly galvanize opposition). Putting more emphasis on "the leak" and less on "we're condemning women to being baby-factories" would be a way to minimize the blowback.

I'm listening to the 538 podcast right now, and polling shows that even now, abortion just isn't that high a priority for most voters. So, yes they favor keeping Roe(mostly, and mostly don't know what it really means to get rid of roe) but there are a ton of other things are driving voters. For instance, getting rid of roe doesn't mean, turning women into baby factories.

If anything progressives are really risking blow back with the protests in front of Justices homes.

Edit, All add this article about polls on the matter:
https://news.yahoo.com/polls-really-...kjLc9wkjXYtJJl
Worth noting:

Quote:

"For one thing," she wrote, "surveys suggest that many Americans don't even know Roe dealt with abortion, as well as that a majority of Americans believe overturning Roe would lead to abortion being illegal across the entire country....."

[JoeMorgue]

Also the fact that the Right and their troll army have already declared their intent to use "the leak" as a way to distract from the ruling probably can't be dismissed as a non-factor.

[shemp]

Originally Posted by ahhell

I'm listening to the 538 podcast right now, and polling shows that even now, abortion just isn't that high a priority for most voters. So, yes they favor keeping Roe(mostly, and mostly don't know what it really means to get rid of roe) but there are a ton of other things are driving voters. For instance, getting rid of roe doesn't mean, turning women into baby factories.

If anything progressives are really risking blow back with the protests in front of Justices homes.

Edit, All add this article about polls on the matter:
https://news.yahoo.com/polls-really-...kjLc9wkjXYtJJl
Worth noting:

It might not be a priority for many voters, but it will be for some. There are some states where a shift of just a few thousand or even a few hundred votes, or just getting a few hundred or thousand to vote who might not have voted otherwise, could shift a Senate or House seat from red to blue. You might not need a lot of such shifts to hold one or both chambers of Congress. I think the Democrats are still in trouble this fall, but things have gotten a bit closer.

[JoeMorgue]

Well yeah that's where the whole "One Issue Voter" comes in at.

None of the big political hot potatoes are most people's biggest worry, but they represent meaningfully big enough voting demographics that it's worth dangling a carrot in front of them.

And with a lot of people its what the ruling represents and what it means for the future.

I don't care about one brick sitting by itself in a pile of bricks, but I care a lot about one brick in the damn upstream from my village, so to speak.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by ahhell

I'm listening to the 538 podcast right now, and polling shows that even now, abortion just isn't that high a priority for most voters.

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.

Quote:

So, yes they favor keeping Roe(mostly, and mostly don't know what it really means to get rid of roe) but there are a ton of other things are driving voters. For instance, getting rid of roe doesn't mean, turning women into baby factories.

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.

Quote:

If anything progressives are really risking blow back with the protests in front of Justices homes.

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".

Quote:

Edit, All add this article about polls on the matter:
https://news.yahoo.com/polls-really-...kjLc9wkjXYtJJl
Worth noting:
"For one thing," she wrote, "surveys suggest that many Americans don't even know Roe dealt with abortion, as well as that a majority of Americans believe overturning Roe would lead to abortion being illegal across the entire country....."

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

[bruto]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Nothing on that level, but I'm assuming SCOTUS has some kind of routine, official correspondence with the press so probably has channels already meant for that and some SCOTUS clerk sending the wrong file to some News Intern doesn't strike me as impossible.

Again thinking out loud more than proposing an official theory.

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.