I had lunch today with a group of lawyers (at a professional association meeting); during the conversation prior to the program, there was discussion of the Supreme Court’s “leak” investigation. Everyone who spoke recognized it as lacking credibility, even with the so-called independent “blessing” of the Chernoff group. It was apparent to everyone at the table that the report, by implication, accused a justice/spouse of the leak. Logic certainly supports that inference too.
I agree with you that the chief justice should resign for the good of the Court as well as the country. So should the justice implicated in the report. The “cover up” effort does not pass the “smell test.”
i've always marveled at how George W Bush gets a pass in so many ways: he doesn't speak out against the MAGA movement, he appointed Roberts and Alito who have proven to be terrible choices--let alone the lying that led to the Iraq War and so much suffering there. Yet he's treated by the media as an amiable and insignificant figure. I knew when he put forth Roberts that we were in real trouble, with his wife an anti-choice activist. "Reality is what we say it is," said "Bush's Brain," Karl Rove.
Robert, I am so heartened by your eloquent outrage about the Supreme Court and this investigation - you didn't even @#$%&!, which I imagine many of us faithful readers are doing.
As I understand it, the Marshal of the Court is an employee of the Court, and her bosses are the 9 Justices. An immense conflict of interest and psychology before the interviews even start. It would take an immensely courageous interviewer to ask always-angry, always-arrogant Sam Alito to sign an affidavit under oath. I imagine Justices Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan would be quite pleasant to deal with.
We deceive ourselves when we think it's possible to control zealots, including few of our current Justices.
Just a note re: the SCOTUS 'leak'. Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC Thursday night pointed out that the leak wasn't SCOTUS's worst event: the decision to overturn Roe v Wade was and that conversation is being blotted out by the so-called leak 'investigation'. O'Donnell also pointed out that Roberts suggested the leak was intended to be a protest but was a means to make the decision cast iron firm, which it turned out to be when finally announced.
Jan 21, 2023·edited Jan 21, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
There was an update today on a story first run by Politico on December 20, 2022.
The article said "Longtime judicial activist Leonard Leo appears to have helped facilitate the sale of former White House senior adviser Kellyanne Conway’s polling company in 2017 — as she was playing a key role in advocating [to Donald Trump] for Leo’s handpicked list of Supreme Court candidates, according to previously unreported financial documents reviewed by government ethics and finance experts."
Today's update said "The conservative judicial activist used BH Fund to facilitate the nominations of conservative judges, but it closed down just three days after POLITICO inquired about its role in the 2017 purchase of Kellyanne Conway’s business."
The article went on to say "“Nothing screams ‘efforts to conceal’ quite like folding up an organization just as you start getting questions about it,” said Saurav Ghosh, director of federal campaign finance reform for the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit founded by a Republican former commissioner of the Federal Election Commission.
Currently, a Senate committee is reviewing a new complaint requesting an investigation into whether federal ethics rules or criminal laws were broken in Conway’s sale of her business, Senate aides confirmed."
Daily Kos reported today "This time, Leo and KellyAnne might just be caught up in something criminal. Watchdog group Campaign for Accountability has asked Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee Chair Gary Peters (D-MI) to investigate the sale conducted while Conway was serving as an executive branch employee. In that role, federal law barred her from participating “personally and substantially” in a matter before the government. Like a Supreme Court nomination."
I hope the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee plans to investigate this situation. I look forward to hearing what Senator Peters and his colleagues discover about the Conway-Leo dark money deal.
The 3 liberal justices ought to sign an affidavit under oath that they did or leak the document (assuming they didn’t). That would put the six others on the spot.
When Jim Jordan begins his McCarthy-esque investigations, I would hope that each witness respond to each question as follows:
Thank you for that question, Senator. Before I respond, I would like to remind everyone that I am under oath, but you and other members of the Committee are not, and you are under no legal obligation to tell the truth or to base your questions on facts. And, I would remind everyone that members of the Committee have in the recent past, without consequence or accountability, refused to testify before a Congressional committee. And, as to the question, having been advised of my rights under the Constitution, I am respectfully declining to answer the question.
The Justices not signing the same affidavit as their employees reminds me that Gini Thomas did not testify under oath when she & her attorney met with The January 6th Committee.
1. "After the report, the strongest inference is that a justice was the source of the leak."
2. "Democrats have been more willing to heed economic and historical lessons about what policies actually strengthen the economy, while Republicans have often clung to theories that they want to believe" Democrats are pragmatic, as you say. Republicans are ideologues.
Plus a third comment which will certainly fall on deaf ears: "John Roberts is not up to the task of saving the Court. If he had the best interests of the nation and the Court at heart, he would resign and allow Biden to appoint a strong leader who can rehabilitate and reform the Court."
Jan 21, 2023·edited Jan 21, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
Regarding the shallow investigation into the leaked draft of a SCOTUS decision, one of the reasons it was so poorly received is that this is 2023, not 1983 or 1963. We’ve all gotten lessons in investigations - good ones and bad - simply by following the news. We’re a much more informed, savvy, and skeptical audience than in years past. We get a daily lesson in democracy, civics, and the law from reading and listening to news. We’ve learned the lesson of George W. Bush from his own lips: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, uh, can’t get fooled again.” We rightly take few public pronouncements without at least a grain of salt. What is said may be sufficient for the credulous few - as with the report of the Marshal of the Court. The rest of us want to examine what was NOT said.
My favorite part : “If he had the best interests of the nation and the Court at heart, he [Roberts] would resign and allow Biden to appoint a strong leader who can rehabilitate and reform the Court.
Thank you for such a great breakdown of the Marshal’s ‘ruling.’ I appreciate your taking the time to cover that and other issues. I hope for a few joyous days for you and your family.
Thanks for the heads up about the new article about how Democrat presidents are better for American economy the last 40 years 😀 will definitely read it ASAP 👍 need to pass that info to Biden staffers and Jeffries staffers too 😀 Thanks again for keeping us in the loop on the cutting edge 😀
"I followed up on all credible leads, none of which implicated the justices or their spouses." OR THEIR SPOUSES?!?!?!? Are you kidding me?!?!?!? The fact that the Marshal even mentioned "spouses" is - I dunno what it is. A red flag. Ludicrous. Gaslighting. Insulting. Stupid. Not up to the job. Toady. Then I continued reading your post and, of course, you sorta said the same thing only much more eloquently. 🤦♀️
Thank you for the link to Leonhardt's article. The comment that jumped out to me - "One possibility is that the two parties are both responding to the interest groups that support and finance them..." - is a good argument to enact Adam Schiff's repeated amendment to overturn Citizen's United and keep (dark) money out of politicians' pockets.
I had lunch today with a group of lawyers (at a professional association meeting); during the conversation prior to the program, there was discussion of the Supreme Court’s “leak” investigation. Everyone who spoke recognized it as lacking credibility, even with the so-called independent “blessing” of the Chernoff group. It was apparent to everyone at the table that the report, by implication, accused a justice/spouse of the leak. Logic certainly supports that inference too.
I agree with you that the chief justice should resign for the good of the Court as well as the country. So should the justice implicated in the report. The “cover up” effort does not pass the “smell test.”
i've always marveled at how George W Bush gets a pass in so many ways: he doesn't speak out against the MAGA movement, he appointed Roberts and Alito who have proven to be terrible choices--let alone the lying that led to the Iraq War and so much suffering there. Yet he's treated by the media as an amiable and insignificant figure. I knew when he put forth Roberts that we were in real trouble, with his wife an anti-choice activist. "Reality is what we say it is," said "Bush's Brain," Karl Rove.
Robert, I am so heartened by your eloquent outrage about the Supreme Court and this investigation - you didn't even @#$%&!, which I imagine many of us faithful readers are doing.
As I understand it, the Marshal of the Court is an employee of the Court, and her bosses are the 9 Justices. An immense conflict of interest and psychology before the interviews even start. It would take an immensely courageous interviewer to ask always-angry, always-arrogant Sam Alito to sign an affidavit under oath. I imagine Justices Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan would be quite pleasant to deal with.
We deceive ourselves when we think it's possible to control zealots, including few of our current Justices.
Just a note re: the SCOTUS 'leak'. Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC Thursday night pointed out that the leak wasn't SCOTUS's worst event: the decision to overturn Roe v Wade was and that conversation is being blotted out by the so-called leak 'investigation'. O'Donnell also pointed out that Roberts suggested the leak was intended to be a protest but was a means to make the decision cast iron firm, which it turned out to be when finally announced.
There was an update today on a story first run by Politico on December 20, 2022.
The article said "Longtime judicial activist Leonard Leo appears to have helped facilitate the sale of former White House senior adviser Kellyanne Conway’s polling company in 2017 — as she was playing a key role in advocating [to Donald Trump] for Leo’s handpicked list of Supreme Court candidates, according to previously unreported financial documents reviewed by government ethics and finance experts."
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/20/trump-conway-leonard-leo-00074690
Today's update said "The conservative judicial activist used BH Fund to facilitate the nominations of conservative judges, but it closed down just three days after POLITICO inquired about its role in the 2017 purchase of Kellyanne Conway’s business."
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/20/dark-money-leonard-leo-00078657
The article went on to say "“Nothing screams ‘efforts to conceal’ quite like folding up an organization just as you start getting questions about it,” said Saurav Ghosh, director of federal campaign finance reform for the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit founded by a Republican former commissioner of the Federal Election Commission.
Currently, a Senate committee is reviewing a new complaint requesting an investigation into whether federal ethics rules or criminal laws were broken in Conway’s sale of her business, Senate aides confirmed."
Daily Kos reported today "This time, Leo and KellyAnne might just be caught up in something criminal. Watchdog group Campaign for Accountability has asked Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee Chair Gary Peters (D-MI) to investigate the sale conducted while Conway was serving as an executive branch employee. In that role, federal law barred her from participating “personally and substantially” in a matter before the government. Like a Supreme Court nomination."
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/1/20/2148331/-Dark-money-fountain-Leonard-Leo-under-scrutiny-for-possibly-helping-KellyAnne-Conway-break-the-law
I hope the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee plans to investigate this situation. I look forward to hearing what Senator Peters and his colleagues discover about the Conway-Leo dark money deal.
The 3 liberal justices ought to sign an affidavit under oath that they did or leak the document (assuming they didn’t). That would put the six others on the spot.
When Jim Jordan begins his McCarthy-esque investigations, I would hope that each witness respond to each question as follows:
Thank you for that question, Senator. Before I respond, I would like to remind everyone that I am under oath, but you and other members of the Committee are not, and you are under no legal obligation to tell the truth or to base your questions on facts. And, I would remind everyone that members of the Committee have in the recent past, without consequence or accountability, refused to testify before a Congressional committee. And, as to the question, having been advised of my rights under the Constitution, I am respectfully declining to answer the question.
The Justices not signing the same affidavit as their employees reminds me that Gini Thomas did not testify under oath when she & her attorney met with The January 6th Committee.
Two comments worth enshrining somewhere:
1. "After the report, the strongest inference is that a justice was the source of the leak."
2. "Democrats have been more willing to heed economic and historical lessons about what policies actually strengthen the economy, while Republicans have often clung to theories that they want to believe" Democrats are pragmatic, as you say. Republicans are ideologues.
Plus a third comment which will certainly fall on deaf ears: "John Roberts is not up to the task of saving the Court. If he had the best interests of the nation and the Court at heart, he would resign and allow Biden to appoint a strong leader who can rehabilitate and reform the Court."
Regarding the shallow investigation into the leaked draft of a SCOTUS decision, one of the reasons it was so poorly received is that this is 2023, not 1983 or 1963. We’ve all gotten lessons in investigations - good ones and bad - simply by following the news. We’re a much more informed, savvy, and skeptical audience than in years past. We get a daily lesson in democracy, civics, and the law from reading and listening to news. We’ve learned the lesson of George W. Bush from his own lips: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, uh, can’t get fooled again.” We rightly take few public pronouncements without at least a grain of salt. What is said may be sufficient for the credulous few - as with the report of the Marshal of the Court. The rest of us want to examine what was NOT said.
Terrific analysis as always.
My favorite part : “If he had the best interests of the nation and the Court at heart, he [Roberts] would resign and allow Biden to appoint a strong leader who can rehabilitate and reform the Court.
Sigh… if only.
When you have one rotten apple in the barrel (Trump) pretty soon they all become rotten.
Thank you for such a great breakdown of the Marshal’s ‘ruling.’ I appreciate your taking the time to cover that and other issues. I hope for a few joyous days for you and your family.
….i spoke to Putin, and we engaged in an iterative process in which I asked questions and he answered mine…..
TFG on speaking to Putin at the Helsinki summit regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Thanks for the heads up about the new article about how Democrat presidents are better for American economy the last 40 years 😀 will definitely read it ASAP 👍 need to pass that info to Biden staffers and Jeffries staffers too 😀 Thanks again for keeping us in the loop on the cutting edge 😀
"I followed up on all credible leads, none of which implicated the justices or their spouses." OR THEIR SPOUSES?!?!?!? Are you kidding me?!?!?!? The fact that the Marshal even mentioned "spouses" is - I dunno what it is. A red flag. Ludicrous. Gaslighting. Insulting. Stupid. Not up to the job. Toady. Then I continued reading your post and, of course, you sorta said the same thing only much more eloquently. 🤦♀️
Thank you for the link to Leonhardt's article. The comment that jumped out to me - "One possibility is that the two parties are both responding to the interest groups that support and finance them..." - is a good argument to enact Adam Schiff's repeated amendment to overturn Citizen's United and keep (dark) money out of politicians' pockets.