143 Comments
тна Return to thread

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.

Expand full comment

Dave, I prefer to see SCOTUS justices required to sign the same affidavit, under penalties of perjury, that staffers were required to sign.

Expand full comment

That definitely should have been.

Expand full comment

Dave, Still could be, in my view, especially considering every staffer passed muster.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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, IтАЩd be there and I imagine you would too.

Expand full comment

Absolutely. One could argue that we've started the ball rolling but the big push will have to come from someone who has more ears tuned in than we do.

Expand full comment