Bombshell: NYT story suggests Alito is the leaker of Dobbs decision

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Schenck dude sounds like a schmuck. The woman he accuses of digging for information and passing it on to him totally denies ever doing so. Alito denies ever even discussing ANY case with anyone outside of the court. Amazing how desperately some of you want these garbage stories to be true.

Alito, in a statement provided to CNN by the Supreme Court on Saturday, called the allegations concerning the dinner conversation "completely false."

"My wife and I became acquainted with the Wrights some years ago because of their strong support for the Supreme Court Historical Society, and since then, we have had a casual and purely social relationship. I never detected any effort on the part of the Wrights to obtain confidential information or to influence anything that I did in either an official or private capacity, and I would have strongly objected if they had done so," Alito said.

Wright vehemently denied Schenck's claims in an interview with CNN on Saturday.

"This whole thing is unbelievably misconstrued," she said, adding that Alito would never have discussed a specific case and she would never have asked about one.

"Cases are never discussed, everybody knows that," she said.

Wright confirmed to CNN the she and her husband had dined with the Alitos at their home and she remembered falling ill during the dinner and Alito offering to drive her home. It was the only time she had dined at the justice's home, but she said she has seen him occasionally over the years. She called any allegation that they had discussed the outcome of a case "patently not true."

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/19/politics/2014-supreme-court-decision-leak-hobby-lobby-samuel-alito/index.html

Of course they are going to say they didn't do it.

But what evidence is there that he did? Just this guy’s … word? If there’s strong evidence that Alito did this, he should be kicked off the court, but this seems to be a rather baseless accusation, followed by a WILD speculation that if he did told friends about hobby he leaked the whole Dobbs decision (?!), by an attention-seeking preacher.

Precisely this. Too funny that LWNJs are taking the word of some preacher (of all people) as gospel because they’re so desperate for this story to be true. Imagine if this Schenck guy had a story that was damaging to Democrats. They’d be dismissing him with their usual disdain. How incredibly predictable our friends on the left are.

What’s really going on here: Leftists are pissed that the SC doesn’t rule the way they like so it’s illegitimate. They lost the house so now are onto something else to destroy

This. It's just astounding to me that they get away with calling the SC "illegitimate" simply because they don't like the conservative judges. They'd be happy as clams if the majority were liberal. Utter hypocrites who I can't take seriously, even for a moment.

The GOP stole a seat and nominated two unqualified justices.

If a left-leaning justice did all of the same crap as Thomas I’d certainly be pushing for impeachment. Non-disclosure of income, not recusing himself, “best friend” with someone trying to reverse the election results, etc.

They blatantly lied and threw out stare decisis to push an extremist religious beliefs.

Roberts looks the other way to all of this. He lost all credibility.

Illegitimate.

Nope. The point stands. You'd have no problem with this court if the majority was liberal and decisions went the way you insist they should. You simply can't bear having a conservative majority. Continue throwing those tantrums!

NP. Would you admit that stonewalling Merrick Garland for months - because “election coming up” - and then slamming ACB through in weeks (because “election coming up”) is a bit hypocritical? Or do you actually believe that those situations were consistent in policy?

Given we now see that Garland is a petty little tyrant, we dodged a huge bullet.

You offer nothing substantive to say, in that case. Garland was denied any kind of vote because nine months was “too close to the election” but Amy CB was installed within days of the election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Schenck dude sounds like a schmuck. The woman he accuses of digging for information and passing it on to him totally denies ever doing so. Alito denies ever even discussing ANY case with anyone outside of the court. Amazing how desperately some of you want these garbage stories to be true.

Alito, in a statement provided to CNN by the Supreme Court on Saturday, called the allegations concerning the dinner conversation "completely false."

"My wife and I became acquainted with the Wrights some years ago because of their strong support for the Supreme Court Historical Society, and since then, we have had a casual and purely social relationship. I never detected any effort on the part of the Wrights to obtain confidential information or to influence anything that I did in either an official or private capacity, and I would have strongly objected if they had done so," Alito said.

Wright vehemently denied Schenck's claims in an interview with CNN on Saturday.

"This whole thing is unbelievably misconstrued," she said, adding that Alito would never have discussed a specific case and she would never have asked about one.

"Cases are never discussed, everybody knows that," she said.

Wright confirmed to CNN the she and her husband had dined with the Alitos at their home and she remembered falling ill during the dinner and Alito offering to drive her home. It was the only time she had dined at the justice's home, but she said she has seen him occasionally over the years. She called any allegation that they had discussed the outcome of a case "patently not true."

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/19/politics/2014-supreme-court-decision-leak-hobby-lobby-samuel-alito/index.html

Of course they are going to say they didn't do it.

But what evidence is there that he did? Just this guy’s … word? If there’s strong evidence that Alito did this, he should be kicked off the court, but this seems to be a rather baseless accusation, followed by a WILD speculation that if he did told friends about hobby he leaked the whole Dobbs decision (?!), by an attention-seeking preacher.

Precisely this. Too funny that LWNJs are taking the word of some preacher (of all people) as gospel because they’re so desperate for this story to be true. Imagine if this Schenck guy had a story that was damaging to Democrats. They’d be dismissing him with their usual disdain. How incredibly predictable our friends on the left are.

What’s really going on here: Leftists are pissed that the SC doesn’t rule the way they like so it’s illegitimate. They lost the house so now are onto something else to destroy

This. It's just astounding to me that they get away with calling the SC "illegitimate" simply because they don't like the conservative judges. They'd be happy as clams if the majority were liberal. Utter hypocrites who I can't take seriously, even for a moment.

The GOP stole a seat and nominated two unqualified justices.

If a left-leaning justice did all of the same crap as Thomas I’d certainly be pushing for impeachment. Non-disclosure of income, not recusing himself, “best friend” with someone trying to reverse the election results, etc.

They blatantly lied and threw out stare decisis to push an extremist religious beliefs.

Roberts looks the other way to all of this. He lost all credibility.

Illegitimate.

Nope. The point stands. You'd have no problem with this court if the majority was liberal and decisions went the way you insist they should. You simply can't bear having a conservative majority. Continue throwing those tantrums!

NP. Would you admit that stonewalling Merrick Garland for months - because “election coming up” - and then slamming ACB through in weeks (because “election coming up”) is a bit hypocritical? Or do you actually believe that those situations were consistent in policy?

Given we now see that Garland is a petty little tyrant, we dodged a huge bullet.

Lol. No one sees Garland as a petty little tyrant except extremist cons who refuse to see the corruption of their orange hero.

[Anonymous]

What exactly is the bombshell. There is NOTHING in this story linking Alito to the Dobbs leak.

What I read is a story about a conversation at a dinner the long time pro life crusader DID NOT ATTEND. In the legal world, this is called hearsay and is inadmissible in court. I also see an undated alleged email to Roberts. There is no proof this was ever sent. I can create an email on my computer too.

I see a man taking credit for his efforts based on the courtroom questioning which indicated which way the court would go.

Both Alito and the person who was actually at the dinner have both denied any conversation about the case.

As far as claims they lied. Roe WAS settled law when asked. They didn’t lie at all. All of the justices on the current court have refused to comment on cases that MAY come before the court as they should.

This screaming they lied they lied is pretty ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What exactly is the bombshell. There is NOTHING in this story linking Alito to the Dobbs leak.

What I read is a story about a conversation at a dinner the long time pro life crusader DID NOT ATTEND. In the legal world, this is called hearsay and is inadmissible in court. I also see an undated alleged email to Roberts. There is no proof this was ever sent. I can create an email on my computer too.

I see a man taking credit for his efforts based on the courtroom questioning which indicated which way the court would go.

Both Alito and the person who was actually at the dinner have both denied any conversation about the case.

As far as claims they lied. Roe WAS settled law when asked. They didn’t lie at all. All of the justices on the current court have refused to comment on cases that MAY come before the court as they should.

This screaming they lied they lied is pretty ridiculous.

How long until these backwards old dinosaurs are gone and stop making us re live the injustices of the past. We need some justices that will protect rights on the court

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What exactly is the bombshell. There is NOTHING in this story linking Alito to the Dobbs leak.

What I read is a story about a conversation at a dinner the long time pro life crusader DID NOT ATTEND. In the legal world, this is called hearsay and is inadmissible in court. I also see an undated alleged email to Roberts. There is no proof this was ever sent. I can create an email on my computer too.

I see a man taking credit for his efforts based on the courtroom questioning which indicated which way the court would go.

Both Alito and the person who was actually at the dinner have both denied any conversation about the case.

As far as claims they lied. Roe WAS settled law when asked. They didn’t lie at all. All of the justices on the current court have refused to comment on cases that MAY come before the court as they should.

This screaming they lied they lied is pretty ridiculous.

The lengths you will go to in order to excuse the right wing lying is pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surprise, surprise! Conservatives have zero respect for the law when it comes to politics.

Surprise, surprise! Liberals once again jump to conclusions that suit their narratives, with zero actual evidence.

I believe the NYT fact checkers. Here’s why. If they are wrong and Alito isn’t the link, he will sue for defamation. And he will win. Waiting for him to threaten to sue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Schenck dude sounds like a schmuck. The woman he accuses of digging for information and passing it on to him totally denies ever doing so. Alito denies ever even discussing ANY case with anyone outside of the court. Amazing how desperately some of you want these garbage stories to be true.

Alito, in a statement provided to CNN by the Supreme Court on Saturday, called the allegations concerning the dinner conversation "completely false."

"My wife and I became acquainted with the Wrights some years ago because of their strong support for the Supreme Court Historical Society, and since then, we have had a casual and purely social relationship. I never detected any effort on the part of the Wrights to obtain confidential information or to influence anything that I did in either an official or private capacity, and I would have strongly objected if they had done so," Alito said.

Wright vehemently denied Schenck's claims in an interview with CNN on Saturday.

"This whole thing is unbelievably misconstrued," she said, adding that Alito would never have discussed a specific case and she would never have asked about one.

"Cases are never discussed, everybody knows that," she said.

Wright confirmed to CNN the she and her husband had dined with the Alitos at their home and she remembered falling ill during the dinner and Alito offering to drive her home. It was the only time she had dined at the justice's home, but she said she has seen him occasionally over the years. She called any allegation that they had discussed the outcome of a case "patently not true."

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/19/politics/2014-supreme-court-decision-leak-hobby-lobby-samuel-alito/index.html

Of course they are going to say they didn't do it.

But what evidence is there that he did? Just this guy’s … word? If there’s strong evidence that Alito did this, he should be kicked off the court, but this seems to be a rather baseless accusation, followed by a WILD speculation that if he did told friends about hobby he leaked the whole Dobbs decision (?!), by an attention-seeking preacher.

Read the story.

+1 Why do people think they can comment with any kind of authority on stories they don't bother to read?

It’s the Steve Bannon technique of flooding the zone with sh*t. If they can put enough sit out there, then people either assume it’s all sit or everyone discusses the sit. Republicans don’t ever read that which might enlighten them.

Republicans can only handle three words at a time: lock her up, stop the steal etc.

Hmm. I’m so embarrassed for you.
“Defund the police!” “Build Back Better!” “Black Lives Matter!” “Not my President![b]”

Do even hear yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surprise, surprise! Conservatives have zero respect for the law when it comes to politics.

Surprise, surprise! Liberals once again jump to conclusions that suit their narratives, with zero actual evidence.

I believe the NYT fact checkers. Here’s why. If they are wrong and Alito isn’t the link, he will sue for defamation. And he will win. Waiting for him to threaten to sue.

There is nothing to sue. The article was written well enough to circumvent a libel case. As you said, the NYT is intelligently led and they rarely make mistakes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surprise, surprise! Conservatives have zero respect for the law when it comes to politics.

Surprise, surprise! Liberals once again jump to conclusions that suit their narratives, with zero actual evidence.

I believe the NYT fact checkers. Here’s why. If they are wrong and Alito isn’t the link, he will sue for defamation. And he will win. Waiting for him to threaten to sue.

The NYT could take it to the Supreme Court, and every member would have to recuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Schenck dude sounds like a schmuck. The woman he accuses of digging for information and passing it on to him totally denies ever doing so. Alito denies ever even discussing ANY case with anyone outside of the court. Amazing how desperately some of you want these garbage stories to be true.

Alito, in a statement provided to CNN by the Supreme Court on Saturday, called the allegations concerning the dinner conversation "completely false."

"My wife and I became acquainted with the Wrights some years ago because of their strong support for the Supreme Court Historical Society, and since then, we have had a casual and purely social relationship. I never detected any effort on the part of the Wrights to obtain confidential information or to influence anything that I did in either an official or private capacity, and I would have strongly objected if they had done so," Alito said.

Wright vehemently denied Schenck's claims in an interview with CNN on Saturday.

"This whole thing is unbelievably misconstrued," she said, adding that Alito would never have discussed a specific case and she would never have asked about one.

"Cases are never discussed, everybody knows that," she said.

Wright confirmed to CNN the she and her husband had dined with the Alitos at their home and she remembered falling ill during the dinner and Alito offering to drive her home. It was the only time she had dined at the justice's home, but she said she has seen him occasionally over the years. She called any allegation that they had discussed the outcome of a case "patently not true."

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/19/politics/2014-supreme-court-decision-leak-hobby-lobby-samuel-alito/index.html

Of course they are going to say they didn't do it.

But what evidence is there that he did? Just this guy’s … word? If there’s strong evidence that Alito did this, he should be kicked off the court, but this seems to be a rather baseless accusation, followed by a WILD speculation that if he did told friends about hobby he leaked the whole Dobbs decision (?!), by an attention-seeking preacher.

Precisely this. Too funny that LWNJs are taking the word of some preacher (of all people) as gospel because they’re so desperate for this story to be true. Imagine if this Schenck guy had a story that was damaging to Democrats. They’d be dismissing him with their usual disdain. How incredibly predictable our friends on the left are.

What’s really going on here: Leftists are pissed that the SC doesn’t rule the way they like so it’s illegitimate. They lost the house so now are onto something else to destroy

This. It's just astounding to me that they get away with calling the SC "illegitimate" simply because they don't like the conservative judges. They'd be happy as clams if the majority were liberal. Utter hypocrites who I can't take seriously, even for a moment.

The GOP stole a seat and nominated two unqualified justices.

If a left-leaning justice did all of the same crap as Thomas I’d certainly be pushing for impeachment. Non-disclosure of income, not recusing himself, “best friend” with someone trying to reverse the election results, etc.

They blatantly lied and threw out stare decisis to push an extremist religious beliefs.

Roberts looks the other way to all of this. He lost all credibility.

Illegitimate.

Nope. The point stands. You'd have no problem with this court if the majority was liberal and decisions went the way you insist they should. You simply can't bear having a conservative majority. Continue throwing those tantrums!

NP. Would you admit that stonewalling Merrick Garland for months - because “election coming up” - and then slamming ACB through in weeks (because “election coming up”) is a bit hypocritical? Or do you actually believe that those situations were consistent in policy?

Given we now see that Garland is a petty little tyrant, we dodged a huge bullet.

You offer nothing substantive to say, in that case. Garland was denied any kind of vote because nine months was “too close to the election” but Amy CB was installed within days of the election.

Schumer said he would not let Bush have any appointments to the Supreme Court in 2008, an election year. The point was that with the other party in control, they were going to wait until after the election.
The closest they came was the appointment of Anthony Kennedy, and that vacancy came up a year earlier, and Kennedy was the third choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Schenck dude sounds like a schmuck. The woman he accuses of digging for information and passing it on to him totally denies ever doing so. Alito denies ever even discussing ANY case with anyone outside of the court. Amazing how desperately some of you want these garbage stories to be true.

Alito, in a statement provided to CNN by the Supreme Court on Saturday, called the allegations concerning the dinner conversation "completely false."

"My wife and I became acquainted with the Wrights some years ago because of their strong support for the Supreme Court Historical Society, and since then, we have had a casual and purely social relationship. I never detected any effort on the part of the Wrights to obtain confidential information or to influence anything that I did in either an official or private capacity, and I would have strongly objected if they had done so," Alito said.

Wright vehemently denied Schenck's claims in an interview with CNN on Saturday.

"This whole thing is unbelievably misconstrued," she said, adding that Alito would never have discussed a specific case and she would never have asked about one.

"Cases are never discussed, everybody knows that," she said.

Wright confirmed to CNN the she and her husband had dined with the Alitos at their home and she remembered falling ill during the dinner and Alito offering to drive her home. It was the only time she had dined at the justice's home, but she said she has seen him occasionally over the years. She called any allegation that they had discussed the outcome of a case "patently not true."

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/19/politics/2014-supreme-court-decision-leak-hobby-lobby-samuel-alito/index.html

Of course they are going to say they didn't do it.

But what evidence is there that he did? Just this guy’s … word? If there’s strong evidence that Alito did this, he should be kicked off the court, but this seems to be a rather baseless accusation, followed by a WILD speculation that if he did told friends about hobby he leaked the whole Dobbs decision (?!), by an attention-seeking preacher.

Precisely this. Too funny that LWNJs are taking the word of some preacher (of all people) as gospel because they’re so desperate for this story to be true. Imagine if this Schenck guy had a story that was damaging to Democrats. They’d be dismissing him with their usual disdain. How incredibly predictable our friends on the left are.

What’s really going on here: Leftists are pissed that the SC doesn’t rule the way they like so it’s illegitimate. They lost the house so now are onto something else to destroy

This. It's just astounding to me that they get away with calling the SC "illegitimate" simply because they don't like the conservative judges. They'd be happy as clams if the majority were liberal. Utter hypocrites who I can't take seriously, even for a moment.

The GOP stole a seat and nominated two unqualified justices.

If a left-leaning justice did all of the same crap as Thomas I’d certainly be pushing for impeachment. Non-disclosure of income, not recusing himself, “best friend” with someone trying to reverse the election results, etc.

They blatantly lied and threw out stare decisis to push an extremist religious beliefs.

Roberts looks the other way to all of this. He lost all credibility.

Illegitimate.

Nope. The point stands. You'd have no problem with this court if the majority was liberal and decisions went the way you insist they should. You simply can't bear having a conservative majority. Continue throwing those tantrums!

NP. Would you admit that stonewalling Merrick Garland for months - because “election coming up” - and then slamming ACB through in weeks (because “election coming up”) is a bit hypocritical? Or do you actually believe that those situations were consistent in policy?

Given we now see that Garland is a petty little tyrant, we dodged a huge bullet.

You offer nothing substantive to say, in that case. Garland was denied any kind of vote because nine months was “too close to the election” but Amy CB was installed within days of the election.

Schumer said he would not let Bush have any appointments to the Supreme Court in 2008, an election year. The point was that with the other party in control, they were going to wait until after the election.
The closest they came was the appointment of Anthony Kennedy, and that vacancy came up a year earlier, and Kennedy was the third choice.

You’re mixing up 2008 and 1988 in some desperate way to make your point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Schenck dude sounds like a schmuck. The woman he accuses of digging for information and passing it on to him totally denies ever doing so. Alito denies ever even discussing ANY case with anyone outside of the court. Amazing how desperately some of you want these garbage stories to be true.

Alito, in a statement provided to CNN by the Supreme Court on Saturday, called the allegations concerning the dinner conversation "completely false."

"My wife and I became acquainted with the Wrights some years ago because of their strong support for the Supreme Court Historical Society, and since then, we have had a casual and purely social relationship. I never detected any effort on the part of the Wrights to obtain confidential information or to influence anything that I did in either an official or private capacity, and I would have strongly objected if they had done so," Alito said.

Wright vehemently denied Schenck's claims in an interview with CNN on Saturday.

"This whole thing is unbelievably misconstrued," she said, adding that Alito would never have discussed a specific case and she would never have asked about one.

"Cases are never discussed, everybody knows that," she said.

Wright confirmed to CNN the she and her husband had dined with the Alitos at their home and she remembered falling ill during the dinner and Alito offering to drive her home. It was the only time she had dined at the justice's home, but she said she has seen him occasionally over the years. She called any allegation that they had discussed the outcome of a case "patently not true."

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/19/politics/2014-supreme-court-decision-leak-hobby-lobby-samuel-alito/index.html

Of course they are going to say they didn't do it.

But what evidence is there that he did? Just this guy’s … word? If there’s strong evidence that Alito did this, he should be kicked off the court, but this seems to be a rather baseless accusation, followed by a WILD speculation that if he did told friends about hobby he leaked the whole Dobbs decision (?!), by an attention-seeking preacher.

Precisely this. Too funny that LWNJs are taking the word of some preacher (of all people) as gospel because they’re so desperate for this story to be true. Imagine if this Schenck guy had a story that was damaging to Democrats. They’d be dismissing him with their usual disdain. How incredibly predictable our friends on the left are.

What’s really going on here: Leftists are pissed that the SC doesn’t rule the way they like so it’s illegitimate. They lost the house so now are onto something else to destroy

This. It's just astounding to me that they get away with calling the SC "illegitimate" simply because they don't like the conservative judges. They'd be happy as clams if the majority were liberal. Utter hypocrites who I can't take seriously, even for a moment.

The GOP stole a seat and nominated two unqualified justices.

If a left-leaning justice did all of the same crap as Thomas I’d certainly be pushing for impeachment. Non-disclosure of income, not recusing himself, “best friend” with someone trying to reverse the election results, etc.

They blatantly lied and threw out stare decisis to push an extremist religious beliefs.

Roberts looks the other way to all of this. He lost all credibility.

Illegitimate.

Nope. The point stands. You'd have no problem with this court if the majority was liberal and decisions went the way you insist they should. You simply can't bear having a conservative majority. Continue throwing those tantrums!

Only RWNJs throw tantrums.

The projection here is so entertaining - and so telling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Schenck dude sounds like a schmuck. The woman he accuses of digging for information and passing it on to him totally denies ever doing so. Alito denies ever even discussing ANY case with anyone outside of the court. Amazing how desperately some of you want these garbage stories to be true.

Alito, in a statement provided to CNN by the Supreme Court on Saturday, called the allegations concerning the dinner conversation "completely false."

"My wife and I became acquainted with the Wrights some years ago because of their strong support for the Supreme Court Historical Society, and since then, we have had a casual and purely social relationship. I never detected any effort on the part of the Wrights to obtain confidential information or to influence anything that I did in either an official or private capacity, and I would have strongly objected if they had done so," Alito said.

Wright vehemently denied Schenck's claims in an interview with CNN on Saturday.

"This whole thing is unbelievably misconstrued," she said, adding that Alito would never have discussed a specific case and she would never have asked about one.

"Cases are never discussed, everybody knows that," she said.

Wright confirmed to CNN the she and her husband had dined with the Alitos at their home and she remembered falling ill during the dinner and Alito offering to drive her home. It was the only time she had dined at the justice's home, but she said she has seen him occasionally over the years. She called any allegation that they had discussed the outcome of a case "patently not true."

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/19/politics/2014-supreme-court-decision-leak-hobby-lobby-samuel-alito/index.html

Of course they are going to say they didn't do it.

But what evidence is there that he did? Just this guy’s … word? If there’s strong evidence that Alito did this, he should be kicked off the court, but this seems to be a rather baseless accusation, followed by a WILD speculation that if he did told friends about hobby he leaked the whole Dobbs decision (?!), by an attention-seeking preacher.

Precisely this. Too funny that LWNJs are taking the word of some preacher (of all people) as gospel because they’re so desperate for this story to be true. Imagine if this Schenck guy had a story that was damaging to Democrats. They’d be dismissing him with their usual disdain. How incredibly predictable our friends on the left are.

What’s really going on here: Leftists are pissed that the SC doesn’t rule the way they like so it’s illegitimate. They lost the house so now are onto something else to destroy

What's really going on here: the double standards and denials and lying of the GOP. Every accusation is a confession. Whatever you say about the Left is what you are doing.

You have that exactly opposite. As usual.
DP

Nope. It's the standard GOP playbook. Say the left is doing it and then they do it themselves.

And, of course, your response is typical GOP as well. Lie, lie, lie. If you say it over and over, it becomes true, right?

Nope. Give it up.

Amazing that you continue to project your own issues into others. Look at this thread - if enough LWNJs keep repeating nonsense, maybe your rubes will believe you! Same old same old. Let us know when this story has actually been proven. Not interested in speculation or claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alito denied the Hobby Lobby leak story but contemporaneous emails show it’s true.

Um, no - nothing shows that this is true. It's one person's word against another's. I'm inclined to believe the Supreme Court Justice, but YMMV.

Why. There is nothing to indicate Alito is a trustworthy person.

What elitism on your part.

Oh, that is rich. As another poster said, if this random preacher claimed to have some information damaging to Democrats, you'd be throwing him to the wolves. You are the OG elitists.

I always find it so funny that the party that caters to the rich and powerful has the audacity to call Democrats elitists. "Elitist" in GOP speak means educated, thoughtful, compassionate. Can't have that. Might divert some of the money from the rich. Gotta keep the base ignorant.

Such hypocrisy.

Wow, are you out of touch. “Elitist” refers to sanctimonious, holier-than-thou, limousine liberals. “Do as I say, not as I do. Supreme Court justices should only be from the Ivy League. We are superior (smarter, better, etc.) to everyone else, thus we should be in charge.” And on and on. That’s elitism in a nutshell and the left exemplifies it. So pathetic that you actually believe your own hype.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Schenck dude sounds like a schmuck. The woman he accuses of digging for information and passing it on to him totally denies ever doing so. Alito denies ever even discussing ANY case with anyone outside of the court. Amazing how desperately some of you want these garbage stories to be true.

Alito, in a statement provided to CNN by the Supreme Court on Saturday, called the allegations concerning the dinner conversation "completely false."

"My wife and I became acquainted with the Wrights some years ago because of their strong support for the Supreme Court Historical Society, and since then, we have had a casual and purely social relationship. I never detected any effort on the part of the Wrights to obtain confidential information or to influence anything that I did in either an official or private capacity, and I would have strongly objected if they had done so," Alito said.

Wright vehemently denied Schenck's claims in an interview with CNN on Saturday.

"This whole thing is unbelievably misconstrued," she said, adding that Alito would never have discussed a specific case and she would never have asked about one.

"Cases are never discussed, everybody knows that," she said.

Wright confirmed to CNN the she and her husband had dined with the Alitos at their home and she remembered falling ill during the dinner and Alito offering to drive her home. It was the only time she had dined at the justice's home, but she said she has seen him occasionally over the years. She called any allegation that they had discussed the outcome of a case "patently not true."

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/19/politics/2014-supreme-court-decision-leak-hobby-lobby-samuel-alito/index.html

Of course they are going to say they didn't do it.

But what evidence is there that he did? Just this guy’s … word? If there’s strong evidence that Alito did this, he should be kicked off the court, but this seems to be a rather baseless accusation, followed by a WILD speculation that if he did told friends about hobby he leaked the whole Dobbs decision (?!), by an attention-seeking preacher.

Precisely this. Too funny that LWNJs are taking the word of some preacher (of all people) as gospel because they’re so desperate for this story to be true. Imagine if this Schenck guy had a story that was damaging to Democrats. They’d be dismissing him with their usual disdain. How incredibly predictable our friends on the left are.

What’s really going on here: Leftists are pissed that the SC doesn’t rule the way they like so it’s illegitimate. They lost the house so now are onto something else to destroy

This. It's just astounding to me that they get away with calling the SC "illegitimate" simply because they don't like the conservative judges. They'd be happy as clams if the majority were liberal. Utter hypocrites who I can't take seriously, even for a moment.

The GOP stole a seat and nominated two unqualified justices.

If a left-leaning justice did all of the same crap as Thomas I’d certainly be pushing for impeachment. Non-disclosure of income, not recusing himself, “best friend” with someone trying to reverse the election results, etc.

They blatantly lied and threw out stare decisis to push an extremist religious beliefs.

Roberts looks the other way to all of this. He lost all credibility.

Illegitimate.

Nope. The point stands. You'd have no problem with this court if the majority was liberal and decisions went the way you insist they should. You simply can't bear having a conservative majority. Continue throwing those tantrums!

NP. Would you admit that stonewalling Merrick Garland for months - because “election coming up” - and then slamming ACB through in weeks (because “election coming up”) is a bit hypocritical? Or do you actually believe that those situations were consistent in policy?

Given we now see that Garland is a petty little tyrant, we dodged a huge bullet.

You offer nothing substantive to say, in that case. Garland was denied any kind of vote because nine months was “too close to the election” but Amy CB was installed within days of the election.

Schumer said he would not let Bush have any appointments to the Supreme Court in 2008, an election year. The point was that with the other party in control, they were going to wait until after the election.
The closest they came was the appointment of Anthony Kennedy, and that vacancy came up a year earlier, and Kennedy was the third choice.

What? Anthony Kennedy was appointed by Reagan and Mike Mansfield (Dem) was Senate Majority leader.

You are not even believable with revisionist history and you are absymally ignorant about any history.