Andrew, While, on one level, I love your idea, for better or worse, I don’t imagine any justice breaking precedent by publicly appearing to disparage the bench.
Andrew, While, on one level, I love your idea, for better or worse, I don’t imagine any justice breaking precedent by publicly appearing to disparage the bench.
Quite right Barbara. The putative liberals won't sign such a document because they don't want to put their colleagues and friends on the spot; those of the notional conservatives who aren't guilty won't sign because of their desire and perceived need to protect their guilty colleague and the guilty one won't sign because he/she doesn't want to spend time in prison for perjury. This is as good a case for an independent Prosecutor as I can imagine if there was a real desire to resolve the issue and restore some semblance of respect for the Court. I have real doubts about the existence of such desire.
Dave, In my view, identifying the leaker won’t resolve the corruption that has ensued from the hold the Federalist Society enjoys over the appointment of justices.
I agree, but absent some very powerful outside impetus it won't be. The discovery that one of the 9 leaked an opinion would require that one to resign for doing it and, maybe, Roberts for covering it up. Roberts doesn't have the guts to take that step even though it would restore respect for the Court in less time than it took to write this.
Dave, Your remarks, regrettably, are spot-on. Additionally, I would note the order probably would have to originate with the Chief Justice, who had commissioned Court Marshall Gail Curley, who had led the team of investigators.
Thanks Barbara. There are times when I'd like to be wrong, and this is one of them. You're right about the genesis of the actual order but the impetus could range from a massive public cry of rage to calls from Court supporters in the 1% to a visit from the ghosts of Justices past. I wish I didn't view the last option as the most likely.
Dave, While I have too much on my plate to initiate, were I contacted and asked to join a chorus of voices demanding that the Chief Justice properly and ethically complete the investigation, I’d be there and I imagine you would too.
Andrew, While, on one level, I love your idea, for better or worse, I don’t imagine any justice breaking precedent by publicly appearing to disparage the bench.
Quite right Barbara. The putative liberals won't sign such a document because they don't want to put their colleagues and friends on the spot; those of the notional conservatives who aren't guilty won't sign because of their desire and perceived need to protect their guilty colleague and the guilty one won't sign because he/she doesn't want to spend time in prison for perjury. This is as good a case for an independent Prosecutor as I can imagine if there was a real desire to resolve the issue and restore some semblance of respect for the Court. I have real doubts about the existence of such desire.
Dave, In my view, identifying the leaker won’t resolve the corruption that has ensued from the hold the Federalist Society enjoys over the appointment of justices.
It won't be a complete resolution by any stretch, but it's at least a start. Most people don't even think there's a problem in the Court.
Dave, I prefer to see SCOTUS justices required to sign the same affidavit, under penalties of perjury, that staffers were required to sign.
That definitely should have been.
Dave, Still could be, in my view, especially considering every staffer passed muster.
I agree, but absent some very powerful outside impetus it won't be. The discovery that one of the 9 leaked an opinion would require that one to resign for doing it and, maybe, Roberts for covering it up. Roberts doesn't have the guts to take that step even though it would restore respect for the Court in less time than it took to write this.
Dave, Your remarks, regrettably, are spot-on. Additionally, I would note the order probably would have to originate with the Chief Justice, who had commissioned Court Marshall Gail Curley, who had led the team of investigators.
Thanks Barbara. There are times when I'd like to be wrong, and this is one of them. You're right about the genesis of the actual order but the impetus could range from a massive public cry of rage to calls from Court supporters in the 1% to a visit from the ghosts of Justices past. I wish I didn't view the last option as the most likely.
Dave, While I have too much on my plate to initiate, were I contacted and asked to join a chorus of voices demanding that the Chief Justice properly and ethically complete the investigation, I’d be there and I imagine you would too.