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:To call this story uncorroborated is to overstate its credibility. Rob Schenck, a pastor who has since turned against his former evangelical allies, claims he heard from a woman who heard from Justice Alito at a dinner party in 2014 about the pending opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, a religious liberty case. Justice Alito denies leaking anything, and the woman denies hearing about it.

But this summer, after the Dobbs abortion decision, Mr. Schenck decided that what he claims to have learned in advance of the Hobby Lobby decision should be shared with the world. He wrote to Chief Justice John Roberts with concern about the gossip. When the Chief didn’t respond to Mr. Schenck’s satisfaction, he turned to the media, and then Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse piled on.

Mr. Whitehouse is famous for his tenacious digging into Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s high-school yearbook. He and Georgia Rep. Hank Johnson have written to the Chief demanding that the Court investigate this alleged ethical breach or they will do it.

This is another case of political intimidation in the service of undermining public confidence in the Court. The accusation is second-hand hearsay from a politically motivated source. The woman and her late husband did attend a dinner party at the home of Justice Alito and his wife after donating money to the Supreme Court Historical Society. But that’s the extent of any corroboration.

The real reason Democrats are upset is because they’ve lost the Court as a backstop legislature for policies they can’t get through Congress.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/targeting-justice-samuel-alito-rob-schenck-supreme-court-hobby-lobby-sheldon-whitehouse-11669154588

You lose credibility any time you cite an opinion piece. The WSJ's news division is respectable, but it's previously pro-Trump and extreme right-wing editorial slant is well-known.

Loser.

I seem to remember after someone leaked the Dobbs decision that WSJ had a bat crap crazy oped about how that would never happen and we should all focus on the leak because the leaker was the worst person in America.

We'll wait while you link to this op-ed. In the meantime, the Dobbs leaker *is* a terrible person. And there are zero indications that person is Alito. Braying about how it "must be so" does not, in fact, make it so.

There are plenty of indications that Alito was involved in the leak. He’s the most likely to think that sharing insider information with right-wing interested parties and lobbyists is ok for right-wingers.

No, there are not "plenty of indications." There is one dinner involving a woman who completely denies the claim that the pastor made. You're welcome to feverishly speculate and hypothesize - as long as you understand there is zero proof of what you assert.

You will not get through to people here. Everything to them is sensationalistic, and essentially a made-for-TV movie or series. If you think back over time at all the threads that died due to the truth coming out, and all the people they worshipped who ended up in jail, it’s pretty clear that facing the truth is hard stuff. It took the media, what, two YEARS to admit there might be truth to a piece of technical equipment?

People here are all hat and no cattle. It’s all emotion, no fact.

How long do you think an internal investigation should take?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To call this story uncorroborated is to overstate its credibility. Rob Schenck, a pastor who has since turned against his former evangelical allies, claims he heard from a woman who heard from Justice Alito at a dinner party in 2014 about the pending opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, a religious liberty case. Justice Alito denies leaking anything, and the woman denies hearing about it.

But this summer, after the Dobbs abortion decision, Mr. Schenck decided that what he claims to have learned in advance of the Hobby Lobby decision should be shared with the world. He wrote to Chief Justice John Roberts with concern about the gossip. When the Chief didn’t respond to Mr. Schenck’s satisfaction, he turned to the media, and then Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse piled on.

Mr. Whitehouse is famous for his tenacious digging into Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s high-school yearbook. He and Georgia Rep. Hank Johnson have written to the Chief demanding that the Court investigate this alleged ethical breach or they will do it.

This is another case of political intimidation in the service of undermining public confidence in the Court. The accusation is second-hand hearsay from a politically motivated source. The woman and her late husband did attend a dinner party at the home of Justice Alito and his wife after donating money to the Supreme Court Historical Society. But that’s the extent of any corroboration.

The real reason Democrats are upset is because they’ve lost the Court as a backstop legislature for policies they can’t get through Congress.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/targeting-justice-samuel-alito-rob-schenck-supreme-court-hobby-lobby-sheldon-whitehouse-11669154588

You lose credibility any time you cite an opinion piece. The WSJ's news division is respectable, but it's previously pro-Trump and extreme right-wing editorial slant is well-known.

Loser.

I seem to remember after someone leaked the Dobbs decision that WSJ had a bat crap crazy oped about how that would never happen and we should all focus on the leak because the leaker was the worst person in America.

We'll wait while you link to this op-ed. In the meantime, the Dobbs leaker *is* a terrible person. And there are zero indications that person is Alito. Braying about how it "must be so" does not, in fact, make it so.

There are plenty of indications that Alito was involved in the leak. He’s the most likely to think that sharing insider information with right-wing interested parties and lobbyists is ok for right-wingers.

No, there are not "plenty of indications." There is one dinner involving a woman who completely denies the claim that the pastor made. You're welcome to feverishly speculate and hypothesize - as long as you understand there is zero proof of what you assert.

You will not get through to people here. Everything to them is sensationalistic, and essentially a made-for-TV movie or series. If you think back over time at all the threads that died due to the truth coming out, and all the people they worshipped who ended up in jail, it’s pretty clear that facing the truth is hard stuff. It took the media, what, two YEARS to admit there might be truth to a piece of technical equipment?

People here are all hat and no cattle. It’s all emotion, no fact.

How long do you think an internal investigation should take?

There was no internal investigation. There was suppression, denial and name-calling

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To call this story uncorroborated is to overstate its credibility. Rob Schenck, a pastor who has since turned against his former evangelical allies, claims he heard from a woman who heard from Justice Alito at a dinner party in 2014 about the pending opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, a religious liberty case. Justice Alito denies leaking anything, and the woman denies hearing about it.

But this summer, after the Dobbs abortion decision, Mr. Schenck decided that what he claims to have learned in advance of the Hobby Lobby decision should be shared with the world. He wrote to Chief Justice John Roberts with concern about the gossip. When the Chief didn’t respond to Mr. Schenck’s satisfaction, he turned to the media, and then Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse piled on.

Mr. Whitehouse is famous for his tenacious digging into Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s high-school yearbook. He and Georgia Rep. Hank Johnson have written to the Chief demanding that the Court investigate this alleged ethical breach or they will do it.

This is another case of political intimidation in the service of undermining public confidence in the Court. The accusation is second-hand hearsay from a politically motivated source. The woman and her late husband did attend a dinner party at the home of Justice Alito and his wife after donating money to the Supreme Court Historical Society. But that’s the extent of any corroboration.

The real reason Democrats are upset is because they’ve lost the Court as a backstop legislature for policies they can’t get through Congress.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/targeting-justice-samuel-alito-rob-schenck-supreme-court-hobby-lobby-sheldon-whitehouse-11669154588

You lose credibility any time you cite an opinion piece. The WSJ's news division is respectable, but it's previously pro-Trump and extreme right-wing editorial slant is well-known.

Loser.

I seem to remember after someone leaked the Dobbs decision that WSJ had a bat crap crazy oped about how that would never happen and we should all focus on the leak because the leaker was the worst person in America.

We'll wait while you link to this op-ed. In the meantime, the Dobbs leaker *is* a terrible person. And there are zero indications that person is Alito. Braying about how it "must be so" does not, in fact, make it so.

There are plenty of indications that Alito was involved in the leak. He’s the most likely to think that sharing insider information with right-wing interested parties and lobbyists is ok for right-wingers.

No, there are not "plenty of indications." There is one dinner involving a woman who completely denies the claim that the pastor made. You're welcome to feverishly speculate and hypothesize - as long as you understand there is zero proof of what you assert.

You will not get through to people here. Everything to them is sensationalistic, and essentially a made-for-TV movie or series. If you think back over time at all the threads that died due to the truth coming out, and all the people they worshipped who ended up in jail, it’s pretty clear that facing the truth is hard stuff. It took the media, what, two YEARS to admit there might be truth to a piece of technical equipment?

People here are all hat and no cattle. It’s all emotion, no fact.

How long do you think an internal investigation should take?

There was no internal investigation. There was suppression, denial and name-calling

What are you talking about? Roberts was going to do an investigation. That was back when ol’ Leaky McLeakerson, whoever he may be, leaked it. That was months ago. Roberts knows full well who the leaker was. That he hasn’t released who it was also implies that it was a conservative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To call this story uncorroborated is to overstate its credibility. Rob Schenck, a pastor who has since turned against his former evangelical allies, claims he heard from a woman who heard from Justice Alito at a dinner party in 2014 about the pending opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, a religious liberty case. Justice Alito denies leaking anything, and the woman denies hearing about it.

But this summer, after the Dobbs abortion decision, Mr. Schenck decided that what he claims to have learned in advance of the Hobby Lobby decision should be shared with the world. He wrote to Chief Justice John Roberts with concern about the gossip. When the Chief didn’t respond to Mr. Schenck’s satisfaction, he turned to the media, and then Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse piled on.

Mr. Whitehouse is famous for his tenacious digging into Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s high-school yearbook. He and Georgia Rep. Hank Johnson have written to the Chief demanding that the Court investigate this alleged ethical breach or they will do it.

This is another case of political intimidation in the service of undermining public confidence in the Court. The accusation is second-hand hearsay from a politically motivated source. The woman and her late husband did attend a dinner party at the home of Justice Alito and his wife after donating money to the Supreme Court Historical Society. But that’s the extent of any corroboration.

The real reason Democrats are upset is because they’ve lost the Court as a backstop legislature for policies they can’t get through Congress.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/targeting-justice-samuel-alito-rob-schenck-supreme-court-hobby-lobby-sheldon-whitehouse-11669154588

You lose credibility any time you cite an opinion piece. The WSJ's news division is respectable, but it's previously pro-Trump and extreme right-wing editorial slant is well-known.

Loser.

I seem to remember after someone leaked the Dobbs decision that WSJ had a bat crap crazy oped about how that would never happen and we should all focus on the leak because the leaker was the worst person in America.

We'll wait while you link to this op-ed. In the meantime, the Dobbs leaker *is* a terrible person. And there are zero indications that person is Alito. Braying about how it "must be so" does not, in fact, make it so.

There are plenty of indications that Alito was involved in the leak. He’s the most likely to think that sharing insider information with right-wing interested parties and lobbyists is ok for right-wingers.

No, there are not "plenty of indications." There is one dinner involving a woman who completely denies the claim that the pastor made. You're welcome to feverishly speculate and hypothesize - as long as you understand there is zero proof of what you assert.

You will not get through to people here. Everything to them is sensationalistic, and essentially a made-for-TV movie or series. If you think back over time at all the threads that died due to the truth coming out, and all the people they worshipped who ended up in jail, it’s pretty clear that facing the truth is hard stuff. It took the media, what, two YEARS to admit there might be truth to a piece of technical equipment?

People here are all hat and no cattle. It’s all emotion, no fact.

How long do you think an internal investigation should take?

There was no internal investigation. There was suppression, denial and name-calling

What are you talking about? Roberts was going to do an investigation. That was back when ol’ Leaky McLeakerson, whoever he may be, leaked it. That was months ago. Roberts knows full well who the leaker was. That he hasn’t released who it was also implies that it was a conservative.

That was what I was thinking as well. When the leak first happened, all the R's were tweeting about it, with pitchforks and torches in hand. Now, most have shut up about it except for saying academically that Supreme Court leaks are bad.
Well, we'll see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To call this story uncorroborated is to overstate its credibility. Rob Schenck, a pastor who has since turned against his former evangelical allies, claims he heard from a woman who heard from Justice Alito at a dinner party in 2014 about the pending opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, a religious liberty case. Justice Alito denies leaking anything, and the woman denies hearing about it.

But this summer, after the Dobbs abortion decision, Mr. Schenck decided that what he claims to have learned in advance of the Hobby Lobby decision should be shared with the world. He wrote to Chief Justice John Roberts with concern about the gossip. When the Chief didn’t respond to Mr. Schenck’s satisfaction, he turned to the media, and then Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse piled on.

Mr. Whitehouse is famous for his tenacious digging into Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s high-school yearbook. He and Georgia Rep. Hank Johnson have written to the Chief demanding that the Court investigate this alleged ethical breach or they will do it.

This is another case of political intimidation in the service of undermining public confidence in the Court. The accusation is second-hand hearsay from a politically motivated source. The woman and her late husband did attend a dinner party at the home of Justice Alito and his wife after donating money to the Supreme Court Historical Society. But that’s the extent of any corroboration.

The real reason Democrats are upset is because they’ve lost the Court as a backstop legislature for policies they can’t get through Congress.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/targeting-justice-samuel-alito-rob-schenck-supreme-court-hobby-lobby-sheldon-whitehouse-11669154588

You lose credibility any time you cite an opinion piece. The WSJ's news division is respectable, but it's previously pro-Trump and extreme right-wing editorial slant is well-known.

Loser.

I seem to remember after someone leaked the Dobbs decision that WSJ had a bat crap crazy oped about how that would never happen and we should all focus on the leak because the leaker was the worst person in America.

We'll wait while you link to this op-ed. In the meantime, the Dobbs leaker *is* a terrible person. And there are zero indications that person is Alito. Braying about how it "must be so" does not, in fact, make it so.

There are plenty of indications that Alito was involved in the leak. He’s the most likely to think that sharing insider information with right-wing interested parties and lobbyists is ok for right-wingers.

No, there are not "plenty of indications." There is one dinner involving a woman who completely denies the claim that the pastor made. You're welcome to feverishly speculate and hypothesize - as long as you understand there is zero proof of what you assert.

You will not get through to people here. Everything to them is sensationalistic, and essentially a made-for-TV movie or series. If you think back over time at all the threads that died due to the truth coming out, and all the people they worshipped who ended up in jail, it’s pretty clear that facing the truth is hard stuff. It took the media, what, two YEARS to admit there might be truth to a piece of technical equipment?

People here are all hat and no cattle. It’s all emotion, no fact.

Lolololol.

Rs routinely and willfully believe “alternative facts”.

[Anonymous]

Here’s the thing about the leak. The internal SCOTUS dispute was between an Alito opinion to overturn Roe or a Roberts opinion upholding 15 months w/o overturning Roe. The liberals already lost either way. The 3 Justices with motives to leak were Alito and Thomas, to generate public pressure on the 3 Trump Justices to stick with them, and Roberts, to generate public pressure to get Kavanaugh and/or Barrett to side with him. The leak had to come from one of the three or from an anti-abortion source that one of the three had leaked to. Maybe the leak was only intended to be shared among the anti-abortion community so they could pressure Barrett and Kavanaugh, but somebody tipped off the press.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the thing about the leak. The internal SCOTUS dispute was between an Alito opinion to overturn Roe or a Roberts opinion upholding 15 weeks w/o overturning Roe. The liberals already lost either way. The 3 Justices with motives to leak were Alito and Thomas, to generate public pressure on the 3 Trump Justices to stick with them, and Roberts, to generate public pressure to get Kavanaugh and/or Barrett to side with him. The leak had to come from one of the three or from an anti-abortion source that one of the three had leaked to. Maybe the leak was only intended to be shared among the anti-abortion community so they could pressure Barrett and Kavanaugh, but somebody tipped off the press.

* 15 weeks, of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the thing about the leak. The internal SCOTUS dispute was between an Alito opinion to overturn Roe or a Roberts opinion upholding 15 months w/o overturning Roe. The liberals already lost either way. The 3 Justices with motives to leak were Alito and Thomas, to generate public pressure on the 3 Trump Justices to stick with them, and Roberts, to generate public pressure to get Kavanaugh and/or Barrett to side with him. The leak had to come from one of the three or from an anti-abortion source that one of the three had leaked to. Maybe the leak was only intended to be shared among the anti-abortion community so they could pressure Barrett and Kavanaugh, but somebody tipped off the press.

It’s so clearly a regressive justice and Roberts just won’t release the findings of the internal investigation. For some reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To call this story uncorroborated is to overstate its credibility. Rob Schenck, a pastor who has since turned against his former evangelical allies, claims he heard from a woman who heard from Justice Alito at a dinner party in 2014 about the pending opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, a religious liberty case. Justice Alito denies leaking anything, and the woman denies hearing about it.

But this summer, after the Dobbs abortion decision, Mr. Schenck decided that what he claims to have learned in advance of the Hobby Lobby decision should be shared with the world. He wrote to Chief Justice John Roberts with concern about the gossip. When the Chief didn’t respond to Mr. Schenck’s satisfaction, he turned to the media, and then Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse piled on.

Mr. Whitehouse is famous for his tenacious digging into Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s high-school yearbook. He and Georgia Rep. Hank Johnson have written to the Chief demanding that the Court investigate this alleged ethical breach or they will do it.

This is another case of political intimidation in the service of undermining public confidence in the Court. The accusation is second-hand hearsay from a politically motivated source. The woman and her late husband did attend a dinner party at the home of Justice Alito and his wife after donating money to the Supreme Court Historical Society. But that’s the extent of any corroboration.

The real reason Democrats are upset is because they’ve lost the Court as a backstop legislature for policies they can’t get through Congress.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/targeting-justice-samuel-alito-rob-schenck-supreme-court-hobby-lobby-sheldon-whitehouse-11669154588

You lose credibility any time you cite an opinion piece. The WSJ's news division is respectable, but it's previously pro-Trump and extreme right-wing editorial slant is well-known.

Loser.

I seem to remember after someone leaked the Dobbs decision that WSJ had a bat crap crazy oped about how that would never happen and we should all focus on the leak because the leaker was the worst person in America.

We'll wait while you link to this op-ed. In the meantime, the Dobbs leaker *is* a terrible person. And there are zero indications that person is Alito. Braying about how it "must be so" does not, in fact, make it so.

There are plenty of indications that Alito was involved in the leak. He’s the most likely to think that sharing insider information with right-wing interested parties and lobbyists is ok for right-wingers.

No, there are not "plenty of indications." There is one dinner involving a woman who completely denies the claim that the pastor made. You're welcome to feverishly speculate and hypothesize - as long as you understand there is zero proof of what you assert.

You will not get through to people here. Everything to them is sensationalistic, and essentially a made-for-TV movie or series. If you think back over time at all the threads that died due to the truth coming out, and all the people they worshipped who ended up in jail, it’s pretty clear that facing the truth is hard stuff. It took the media, what, two YEARS to admit there might be truth to a piece of technical equipment?

People here are all hat and no cattle. It’s all emotion, no fact.

+100
It really amazes me that people - specifically liberals - will seize on something with zero proof because it suits their narrative. I really do look forward to the truth coming out about this leak. Once again, they will slither away and never apologize or acknowledge how wrong they were.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To call this story uncorroborated is to overstate its credibility. Rob Schenck, a pastor who has since turned against his former evangelical allies, claims he heard from a woman who heard from Justice Alito at a dinner party in 2014 about the pending opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, a religious liberty case. Justice Alito denies leaking anything, and the woman denies hearing about it.

But this summer, after the Dobbs abortion decision, Mr. Schenck decided that what he claims to have learned in advance of the Hobby Lobby decision should be shared with the world. He wrote to Chief Justice John Roberts with concern about the gossip. When the Chief didn’t respond to Mr. Schenck’s satisfaction, he turned to the media, and then Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse piled on.

Mr. Whitehouse is famous for his tenacious digging into Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s high-school yearbook. He and Georgia Rep. Hank Johnson have written to the Chief demanding that the Court investigate this alleged ethical breach or they will do it.

This is another case of political intimidation in the service of undermining public confidence in the Court. The accusation is second-hand hearsay from a politically motivated source. The woman and her late husband did attend a dinner party at the home of Justice Alito and his wife after donating money to the Supreme Court Historical Society. But that’s the extent of any corroboration.

The real reason Democrats are upset is because they’ve lost the Court as a backstop legislature for policies they can’t get through Congress.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/targeting-justice-samuel-alito-rob-schenck-supreme-court-hobby-lobby-sheldon-whitehouse-11669154588

You lose credibility any time you cite an opinion piece. The WSJ's news division is respectable, but it's previously pro-Trump and extreme right-wing editorial slant is well-known.

Loser.

I seem to remember after someone leaked the Dobbs decision that WSJ had a bat crap crazy oped about how that would never happen and we should all focus on the leak because the leaker was the worst person in America.

We'll wait while you link to this op-ed. In the meantime, the Dobbs leaker *is* a terrible person. And there are zero indications that person is Alito. Braying about how it "must be so" does not, in fact, make it so.

There are plenty of indications that Alito was involved in the leak. He’s the most likely to think that sharing insider information with right-wing interested parties and lobbyists is ok for right-wingers.

No, there are not "plenty of indications." There is one dinner involving a woman who completely denies the claim that the pastor made. You're welcome to feverishly speculate and hypothesize - as long as you understand there is zero proof of what you assert.

You will not get through to people here. Everything to them is sensationalistic, and essentially a made-for-TV movie or series. If you think back over time at all the threads that died due to the truth coming out, and all the people they worshipped who ended up in jail, it’s pretty clear that facing the truth is hard stuff. It took the media, what, two YEARS to admit there might be truth to a piece of technical equipment?

People here are all hat and no cattle. It’s all emotion, no fact.

How long do you think an internal investigation should take?

DP. How long did the internal investigation of the Border Patrol agents and the alleged "whipping" take?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the thing about the leak. The internal SCOTUS dispute was between an Alito opinion to overturn Roe or a Roberts opinion upholding 15 months w/o overturning Roe. The liberals already lost either way. The 3 Justices with motives to leak were Alito and Thomas, to generate public pressure on the 3 Trump Justices to stick with them, and Roberts, to generate public pressure to get Kavanaugh and/or Barrett to side with him. The leak had to come from one of the three or from an anti-abortion source that one of the three had leaked to. Maybe the leak was only intended to be shared among the anti-abortion community so they could pressure Barrett and Kavanaugh, but somebody tipped off the press.

Mitch McConnell would have a motive to leak, to keep the issue from popping up close to the election.
Liberals had motive to put pressure on the other judges to change their votes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To call this story uncorroborated is to overstate its credibility. Rob Schenck, a pastor who has since turned against his former evangelical allies, claims he heard from a woman who heard from Justice Alito at a dinner party in 2014 about the pending opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, a religious liberty case. Justice Alito denies leaking anything, and the woman denies hearing about it.

But this summer, after the Dobbs abortion decision, Mr. Schenck decided that what he claims to have learned in advance of the Hobby Lobby decision should be shared with the world. He wrote to Chief Justice John Roberts with concern about the gossip. When the Chief didn’t respond to Mr. Schenck’s satisfaction, he turned to the media, and then Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse piled on.

Mr. Whitehouse is famous for his tenacious digging into Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s high-school yearbook. He and Georgia Rep. Hank Johnson have written to the Chief demanding that the Court investigate this alleged ethical breach or they will do it.

This is another case of political intimidation in the service of undermining public confidence in the Court. The accusation is second-hand hearsay from a politically motivated source. The woman and her late husband did attend a dinner party at the home of Justice Alito and his wife after donating money to the Supreme Court Historical Society. But that’s the extent of any corroboration.

The real reason Democrats are upset is because they’ve lost the Court as a backstop legislature for policies they can’t get through Congress.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/targeting-justice-samuel-alito-rob-schenck-supreme-court-hobby-lobby-sheldon-whitehouse-11669154588

You lose credibility any time you cite an opinion piece. The WSJ's news division is respectable, but it's previously pro-Trump and extreme right-wing editorial slant is well-known.

Loser.

I seem to remember after someone leaked the Dobbs decision that WSJ had a bat crap crazy oped about how that would never happen and we should all focus on the leak because the leaker was the worst person in America.

We'll wait while you link to this op-ed. In the meantime, the Dobbs leaker *is* a terrible person. And there are zero indications that person is Alito. Braying about how it "must be so" does not, in fact, make it so.

There are plenty of indications that Alito was involved in the leak. He’s the most likely to think that sharing insider information with right-wing interested parties and lobbyists is ok for right-wingers.

No, there are not "plenty of indications." There is one dinner involving a woman who completely denies the claim that the pastor made. You're welcome to feverishly speculate and hypothesize - as long as you understand there is zero proof of what you assert.

You will not get through to people here. Everything to them is sensationalistic, and essentially a made-for-TV movie or series. If you think back over time at all the threads that died due to the truth coming out, and all the people they worshipped who ended up in jail, it’s pretty clear that facing the truth is hard stuff. It took the media, what, two YEARS to admit there might be truth to a piece of technical equipment?

People here are all hat and no cattle. It’s all emotion, no fact.

How long do you think an internal investigation should take?

DP. How long did the internal investigation of the Border Patrol agents and the alleged "whipping" take?

Crickets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the thing about the leak. The internal SCOTUS dispute was between an Alito opinion to overturn Roe or a Roberts opinion upholding 15 weeks w/o overturning Roe. The liberals already lost either way. The 3 Justices with motives to leak were Alito and Thomas, to generate public pressure on the 3 Trump Justices to stick with them, and Roberts, to generate public pressure to get Kavanaugh and/or Barrett to side with him. The leak had to come from one of the three or from an anti-abortion source that one of the three had leaked to. Maybe the leak was only intended to be shared among the anti-abortion community so they could pressure Barrett and Kavanaugh, but somebody tipped off the press.

Mitch McConnell would have a motive to leak, to keep the issue from popping up close to the election.
Liberals had motive to put pressure on the other judges to change their votes.

Mitch McConnell shouldn’t know anything. It would have to be leaked by someone inside SCOTUS for McConnell to know the status, and he wouldn’t leak to the press, he has more influence behind the scenes through lobbyists than in the public. The liberals knew that Barrett and Kavanaugh were never going to vote with them on this. The leak did nothing for liberals. All the pressure on B and K came from Alito/Thomas and Roberts. Roberts didn’t leak it, the point of the leak was to tip off anti-abortion zealots that Roberts was trying to block them from overturning Roe. It had to come from Alito or Thomas or someone in their camp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To call this story uncorroborated is to overstate its credibility. Rob Schenck, a pastor who has since turned against his former evangelical allies, claims he heard from a woman who heard from Justice Alito at a dinner party in 2014 about the pending opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, a religious liberty case. Justice Alito denies leaking anything, and the woman denies hearing about it.

But this summer, after the Dobbs abortion decision, Mr. Schenck decided that what he claims to have learned in advance of the Hobby Lobby decision should be shared with the world. He wrote to Chief Justice John Roberts with concern about the gossip. When the Chief didn’t respond to Mr. Schenck’s satisfaction, he turned to the media, and then Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse piled on.

Mr. Whitehouse is famous for his tenacious digging into Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s high-school yearbook. He and Georgia Rep. Hank Johnson have written to the Chief demanding that the Court investigate this alleged ethical breach or they will do it.

This is another case of political intimidation in the service of undermining public confidence in the Court. The accusation is second-hand hearsay from a politically motivated source. The woman and her late husband did attend a dinner party at the home of Justice Alito and his wife after donating money to the Supreme Court Historical Society. But that’s the extent of any corroboration.

The real reason Democrats are upset is because they’ve lost the Court as a backstop legislature for policies they can’t get through Congress.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/targeting-justice-samuel-alito-rob-schenck-supreme-court-hobby-lobby-sheldon-whitehouse-11669154588

You lose credibility any time you cite an opinion piece. The WSJ's news division is respectable, but it's previously pro-Trump and extreme right-wing editorial slant is well-known.

Loser.

I seem to remember after someone leaked the Dobbs decision that WSJ had a bat crap crazy oped about how that would never happen and we should all focus on the leak because the leaker was the worst person in America.

We'll wait while you link to this op-ed. In the meantime, the Dobbs leaker *is* a terrible person. And there are zero indications that person is Alito. Braying about how it "must be so" does not, in fact, make it so.

There are plenty of indications that Alito was involved in the leak. He’s the most likely to think that sharing insider information with right-wing interested parties and lobbyists is ok for right-wingers.

No, there are not "plenty of indications." There is one dinner involving a woman who completely denies the claim that the pastor made. You're welcome to feverishly speculate and hypothesize - as long as you understand there is zero proof of what you assert.

You will not get through to people here. Everything to them is sensationalistic, and essentially a made-for-TV movie or series. If you think back over time at all the threads that died due to the truth coming out, and all the people they worshipped who ended up in jail, it’s pretty clear that facing the truth is hard stuff. It took the media, what, two YEARS to admit there might be truth to a piece of technical equipment?

People here are all hat and no cattle. It’s all emotion, no fact.

How long do you think an internal investigation should take?

DP. How long did the internal investigation of the Border Patrol agents and the alleged "whipping" take?

Crickets.

Irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To call this story uncorroborated is to overstate its credibility. Rob Schenck, a pastor who has since turned against his former evangelical allies, claims he heard from a woman who heard from Justice Alito at a dinner party in 2014 about the pending opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, a religious liberty case. Justice Alito denies leaking anything, and the woman denies hearing about it.

But this summer, after the Dobbs abortion decision, Mr. Schenck decided that what he claims to have learned in advance of the Hobby Lobby decision should be shared with the world. He wrote to Chief Justice John Roberts with concern about the gossip. When the Chief didn’t respond to Mr. Schenck’s satisfaction, he turned to the media, and then Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse piled on.

Mr. Whitehouse is famous for his tenacious digging into Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s high-school yearbook. He and Georgia Rep. Hank Johnson have written to the Chief demanding that the Court investigate this alleged ethical breach or they will do it.

This is another case of political intimidation in the service of undermining public confidence in the Court. The accusation is second-hand hearsay from a politically motivated source. The woman and her late husband did attend a dinner party at the home of Justice Alito and his wife after donating money to the Supreme Court Historical Society. But that’s the extent of any corroboration.

The real reason Democrats are upset is because they’ve lost the Court as a backstop legislature for policies they can’t get through Congress.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/targeting-justice-samuel-alito-rob-schenck-supreme-court-hobby-lobby-sheldon-whitehouse-11669154588

You lose credibility any time you cite an opinion piece. The WSJ's news division is respectable, but it's previously pro-Trump and extreme right-wing editorial slant is well-known.

Loser.

I seem to remember after someone leaked the Dobbs decision that WSJ had a bat crap crazy oped about how that would never happen and we should all focus on the leak because the leaker was the worst person in America.

We'll wait while you link to this op-ed. In the meantime, the Dobbs leaker *is* a terrible person. And there are zero indications that person is Alito. Braying about how it "must be so" does not, in fact, make it so.

There are plenty of indications that Alito was involved in the leak. He’s the most likely to think that sharing insider information with right-wing interested parties and lobbyists is ok for right-wingers.

No, there are not "plenty of indications." There is one dinner involving a woman who completely denies the claim that the pastor made. You're welcome to feverishly speculate and hypothesize - as long as you understand there is zero proof of what you assert.

You will not get through to people here. Everything to them is sensationalistic, and essentially a made-for-TV movie or series. If you think back over time at all the threads that died due to the truth coming out, and all the people they worshipped who ended up in jail, it’s pretty clear that facing the truth is hard stuff. It took the media, what, two YEARS to admit there might be truth to a piece of technical equipment?

People here are all hat and no cattle. It’s all emotion, no fact.

How long do you think an internal investigation should take?

DP. How long did the internal investigation of the Border Patrol agents and the alleged "whipping" take?

Crickets.

Irrelevant.

Not at all. PP was complaining that the internal investigation is taking too long; but we heard zip from the administration for months and months while the BP was being "investigated" for doing nothing wrong. I guess you'll just have to wait, like the rest of us did.