Ted Cruz pitches a fit after "woke left wing twit" allegedly leaks Alito opinioin.

[AU9377 4,924]

First of all, I don't know of a criminal charge that exists.  No crime has been committed.  If a clerk is responsible, that clerk could be dismissed, but disbarment would not likely be an available avenue of punishment either.

Teddy knows all of this, but it doesn't provide the soundbite that he wanted to deliver.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10786195/Cruz-blames-SCOTUS-leak-little-woke-left-wing-twit-says-disbarred-JAILED.html

[TexasTiger 12,829]

Cruz is a wannabe autocrat. We don’t know who leaked it. Somebody previously leaked the initial vote to the WSJ— a conservative seems more likely. The draft? Who knows? It could be a conservative wanting to make it hard for one of the 5 to back out. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

There's no unassailable argument to pin this on either a more liberal or a more conservative justice's clerk.  But I do believe it was an egregiously wrong and dangerous act and whoever did it should be fired and if disbarment is something that's possible, I would pursue it.  

[AU9377 4,924]

6 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

There's no unassailable argument to pin this on either a more liberal or a more conservative justice's clerk.  But I do believe it was an egregiously wrong and dangerous act and whoever did it should be fired and if disbarment is something that's possible, I would pursue it.  

This is really similar to leaking draft legislation. The Court is not immune from criticism. This breaks protocol, but no law was broken. It is an act that will get someone fired.  If they were smart about it, proving who the source was will be impossible.  They can't make Politico give up that information.  If someone was dumb enough to use their personal cell phone or send texts concerning the leak, then they really shouldn't be clerking in the first place.

I would love to see one of the Justices come forward and take responsibility.  There is absolutely nothing that could be done in that case.  Of course, the Court is so full of the Ivy League that it is literally choking the life out of the system.

[homersapien 11,362]

On 5/5/2022 at 5:41 PM, TexasTiger said:

Cruz is a wannabe autocrat. We don’t know who leaked it. Somebody previously leaked the initial vote to the WSJ— a conservative seems more likely. The draft? Who knows? It could be a conservative wanting to make it hard for one of the 5 to back out. 

Good point.  I hadn't considered it.

[GoAU 1,600]

Regardless of my opinions of who would have been more likely / motivated to do it, the consequences for the action remain the same - it is a serious violation of the practices of the court and should be a career ender for the person that violated trust.  

[AUDub 11,147]

7 hours ago, GoAU said:

Regardless of my opinions of who would have been more likely / motivated to do it, the consequences for the action remain the same - it is a serious violation of the practices of the court and should be a career ender for the person that violated trust.  

It will be.

Shouldn't be any charges coming even if they do discover the leaker though. 

[AU9377 4,924]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

It will be.

Shouldn't be any charges coming even if they do discover the leaker though. 

There isn't a crime to charge.  There is no classified information.  Their career as a clerk will be over, but they will be fine otherwise.  After all, they have an ivy league degree and likely come from money.

 

[AUDub 11,147]

4 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

There isn't a crime to charge.  There is no classified information.  Their career as a clerk will be over, but they will be fine otherwise.  After all, they have an ivy league degree and likely come from money.

 

About the only crime I think is reasonable is if the leaker lies to investigators and they gin up a 1001 charge, which the gummint does a lot. 

Why you should always shut up. Can't lie to investigators if you don't talk to them. 

[AU9377 4,924]

29 minutes ago, AUDub said:

About the only crime I think is reasonable is if the leaker lies to investigators and they gin up a 1001 charge, which the gummint does a lot. 

Why you should always shut up. Can't lie to investigators if you don't talk to them. 

That is very true.  I'm just thinking out loud, but I wonder if who does the investigating would impact whether that can be charged or not?  If the FBI investigates, as you point out, that is a go to charge.  Does the Court's Marshall have the same powers vested in his investigative actions?  I honestly don't know.

[homersapien 11,362]

Whatever harm this might have done to the court is nothing compared to what McConnell has done to it. 

[keywest 138]

On 5/5/2022 at 12:29 PM, AU9377 said:

First of all, I don't know of a criminal charge that exists.  No crime has been committed.  If a clerk is responsible, that clerk could be dismissed, but disbarment would not likely be an available avenue of punishment either.

Teddy knows all of this, but it doesn't provide the soundbite that he wanted to deliver.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10786195/Cruz-blames-SCOTUS-leak-little-woke-left-wing-twit-says-disbarred-JAILED.html

First, you have ZERO facts and/or knowledge that the alleged leak that leftist have their panties in a big wad is real or a leftist attempt to influence 

Potential Crimes:

Felony: Stealing or converting federal government property for their own use

Felony: Embezzlement of government records

Felony: Conspiracy to defraud The United States

Felony: If the alleged leak is true, It clearly was done with the intention of intimidating justices and thus influencing their ultimate disposition of the case (which is not an official court ruling until it is formally issued as such) – is patently an obstruction of the Court’s lawful functions

Felony: To interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest

Crime: Theft

Felony: Hacking federal website

 

There CLEARLY has been many crimes committed if the alleged leak is true!

[AUDub 11,147]

Just now, keywest said:

First, you have ZERO facts and/or knowledge that the alleged leak that leftist have their panties in a big wad is real or a leftist attempt to influence 

Potential Crimes:

Felony: Stealing or converting federal government property for their own use

Felony: Embezzlement of government records

Felony: Conspiracy to defraud The United States

Felony: If the alleged leak is true, It clearly was done with the intention of intimidating justices and thus influencing their ultimate disposition of the case (which is not an official court ruling until it is formally issued as such) – is patently an obstruction of the Court’s lawful functions

Felony: To interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest

Crime: Theft

Felony: Hacking federal website

 

There CLEARLY has been many crimes committed if the alleged leak is true!

Holy s*** we have a moron on our hands calling out a literal attorney at law. 

[TexasTiger 12,829]

1 minute ago, keywest said:

First, you have ZERO facts and/or knowledge that the alleged leak that leftist have their panties in a big wad is real or a leftist attempt to influence 

Potential Crimes:

Felony: Stealing or converting federal government property for their own use

Felony: Embezzlement of government records

Felony: Conspiracy to defraud The United States

Felony: If the alleged leak is true, It clearly was done with the intention of intimidating justices and thus influencing their ultimate disposition of the case (which is not an official court ruling until it is formally issued as such) – is patently an obstruction of the Court’s lawful functions

Felony: To interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest

Crime: Theft

Felony: Hacking federal website

 

There CLEARLY has been many crimes committed if the alleged leak is true!

Never sniffed a law school, have you?

[AUDub 11,147]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

Never sniffed a law school, have you?

They flead that from somwhere. These are terms far above their level of comprehension. 

[TexasTiger 12,829]

13 hours ago, AU9377 said:

This is really similar to leaking draft legislation. The Court is not immune from criticism. This breaks protocol, but no law was broken. It is an act that will get someone fired.  If they were smart about it, proving who the source was will be impossible.  They can't make Politico give up that information.  If someone was dumb enough to use their personal cell phone or send texts concerning the leak, then they really shouldn't be clerking in the first place.

I would love to see one of the Justices come forward and take responsibility.  There is absolutely nothing that could be done in that case.  Of course, the Court is so full of the Ivy League that it is literally choking the life out of the system.

I wish firms, corporations and governments would largely ignore the Ivy League for a good while, hiring from state schools instead. We’d all be better for it.

[AUDub 11,147]

49 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

That is very true.  I'm just thinking out loud, but I wonder if who does the investigating would impact whether that can be charged or not?  If the FBI investigates, as you point out, that is a go to charge.  Does the Court's Marshall have the same powers vested in his investigative actions?  I honestly don't know.

Isn't the Court Marshall a US Marshall? In that case they'll have all the enforcement power needed for 1001 to apply. 

[homersapien 11,362]

I don't think this leak is dangerous or harmful, in fact, just the opposite.  It may be the only thing that prevents the SCOTUS from making a terrible mistake - right up there with the Dred Scott ruling.

Hopefully, the reaction will give pause to enough judges to retain Roe by convincing them of the cultural and political implications of reversing it.  Implications regarding the basic rights of Americans, and American women in particular.   Implications Alito is either blind to, or doesn't give a s*** about. 

 

Edited May 7, 2022 by homersapien

[AU9377 4,924]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

Isn't the Court Marshall a US Marshall? In that case they'll have all the enforcement power needed for 1001 to apply. 

I believe so.

[AU9377 4,924]

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

Holy s*** we have a moron on our hands calling out a literal attorney at law. 

It's stealin I tell ya. LOL. 

Somebody forgot that if it was a clerk or person working in a judge's chamber on staff etc, they were in possession of the document legally.  At this point, for all we know, someone in one of those offices could share an apartment with someone that is friends with someone that knows a reporter at Politico.  While the clerk went for a jog, someone they don't know could have lifted it from their work bag.  The point being that we simply don't know.

[AU9377 4,924]

2 hours ago, keywest said:

First, you have ZERO facts and/or knowledge that the alleged leak that leftist have their panties in a big wad is real or a leftist attempt to influence 

Potential Crimes:

Felony: Stealing or converting federal government property for their own use

Felony: Embezzlement of government records

Felony: Conspiracy to defraud The United States

Felony: If the alleged leak is true, It clearly was done with the intention of intimidating justices and thus influencing their ultimate disposition of the case (which is not an official court ruling until it is formally issued as such) – is patently an obstruction of the Court’s lawful functions

Felony: To interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest

Crime: Theft

Felony: Hacking federal website

 

There CLEARLY has been many crimes committed if the alleged leak is true!

Just to keep us all on the same page, the Chief Justice has confirmed the authenticity of the draft opinion.  He also pointed out that it is a draft and the final opinion could change in very substantive ways between now and when the opinion is released.

I'm not really certain how this leak could intimidate a Supreme Court justice.  It isn't as though they vote by way of secret ballot.  They have Secret Service protection and lifetime appointments.  I think they will be just fine.  If it is just too much, they can always retire and increase their salary by $1 million per year by allowing a firm to place their name on the letterhead.