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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For anyone who’s calling this fake news, it’s by the same reporters who took down Harvey Weinstein.

Ronan Farrow? He lost all respect when he put up some fake allegations against Brett Kavanaugh.

LOLOL You mean Bart O Kavanaugh?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, I've read all that excellently-written article, and it's clear that in the scenario laid out, that's been corroborated with witnesses and emails, Alito is the only person who could have told the Ohio donors, who then told Schenke. There is no direct evidence that Alito told Mrs. Wright and her husband, but it's the only possible way the thread of info could have been shared.

So yes, Alito is clearly targeted in this article, and with substantive indirect evidence.

Also, Schenke looks completely moronic. He says he now realizes how banning abortion hurts women. What's the real reason he turned his coat?

Yeah, I was wondering about that. He does sound really, really sleazy.
Something else happened. He didn't just see the light.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If our congress were populated with people of integrity who would put country over party, they would impeach both Alito and Thomas. It is a stain on the functioning of a key pillar of our government that one critical branch is so clearly compromised by unethical workings (and don’t even get me started on ACB and Kavanaugh and how they were both awful/ illegitimate additions to the court - but I feel that ship has sailed). The priority to restore trust is that Thomas and Alito must go.

Wow. Neither were awful, much less "illegitimate." Amazing that you STILL can't bring yourself to get over it.

Merrick Garland should be on the SCOTUS except for that puss-hole Mitch, who held up his nomination until the POS Cheato was in office. Then the far-right GOP Federalist Society judges were given to POS Cheato to nominate, and the GOP crammed them in as fast as possible. Three righties on the court, all of whom lied about stare decisis w/r/t Roe v Wade, which they overturned despite overwhelming public support for legal abortion.

These justices are not technically illegitimate, as you point out, but they should be impeached for lying. And Thomas, who only got his job because he's black, should be impeached for refusing to recuse himself on POS Cheato matters that his wife was heavily involved in, including the Jan. 6 insurrection.

The Roberts Court is a failure and has completely lost the respect of the US public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, I've read all that excellently-written article, and it's clear that in the scenario laid out, that's been corroborated with witnesses and emails, Alito is the only person who could have told the Ohio donors, who then told Schenke. There is no direct evidence that Alito told Mrs. Wright and her husband, but it's the only possible way the thread of info could have been shared.

So yes, Alito is clearly targeted in this article, and with substantive indirect evidence.

Also, Schenke looks completely moronic. He says he now realizes how banning abortion hurts women. What's the real reason he turned his coat?

Yeah, I was wondering about that. He does sound really, really sleazy.
Something else happened. He didn't just see the light.

Yup. He burned bridges, so can't stay with his previous social set, and thinks he can make more money as an "enlightened" Evangelical.

[Anonymous]

If anyone thinks Supreme Court decisions never leaked before, in a small and discreet way, they have another thing coming. Contained leaks, and relations between justices and parties, are part of the normal functioning of that Court.

However here the story is that the Dobbs leak might have been done by the author of the decision, who has clearly leaked before, and the opposing side was accused of it.

So just setting the record straight here.

[Anonymous]

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.

??? I read the story? Did you? Or our standards just that low these days?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If our congress were populated with people of integrity who would put country over party, they would impeach both Alito and Thomas. It is a stain on the functioning of a key pillar of our government that one critical branch is so clearly compromised by unethical workings (and don’t even get me started on ACB and Kavanaugh and how they were both awful/ illegitimate additions to the court - but I feel that ship has sailed). The priority to restore trust is that Thomas and Alito must go.

Wow. Neither were awful, much less "illegitimate." Amazing that you STILL can't bring yourself to get over it.

DP. Kavanaugh never should have been allowed on the DC Court of Appeals, much less the Supreme Court. He is a longtime Republican political operative and the idea that he could be non-partisan is absurd.

ACB just didn't have the credentials at the time of her nomination, and is also a right wing Catholic, of which there are four on the Court, a gross misrepresentation. I do agree that we should break out of the Harvard/Yale/DC Court of Appeals pipeline.

Gorsuch is simply a stolen seat for partisan reasons.

Supreme Court Reform now.

[Anonymous]

The ObamaCare decision was also leaked. Ramesh Ponnuru blogged about what he was hearing, and that ended up being correct.

[Anonymous]

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.

He also said Roe was settled law. Guess what? He lied! If he was willing to lie in a confirmation hearing, what makes you think he’d have a problem lying to a journalist? Lying for Jesus is a thing; Scummy Alito absolutely thinks he should lie.

KBJ gave similar answers about gun control and Heller. Will you call for her impeachment if she votes against Heller?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett are all political hacks. At least Gorsuch is qualified to be on the court. The others aren't.

This has to be among the lowest times in the history of the court. Almost as bad as the Taney court and the Dred Scott era.

Dred Scott was the original source for the reasoning used in Roe v Wade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Merrick Garland should be on the SCOTUS except for that puss-hole Mitch, who held up his nomination until the POS Cheato was in office.

Barack Obama voted against cloture for Alito's nomination, in other words denying Alito a vote on the Senate floor. At that time Senators were not voting as much in lockstep, so Alito got his vote without a change of Senate rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If our congress were populated with people of integrity who would put country over party, they would impeach both Alito and Thomas. It is a stain on the functioning of a key pillar of our government that one critical branch is so clearly compromised by unethical workings (and don’t even get me started on ACB and Kavanaugh and how they were both awful/ illegitimate additions to the court - but I feel that ship has sailed). The priority to restore trust is that Thomas and Alito must go.

Wow. Neither were awful, much less "illegitimate." Amazing that you STILL can't bring yourself to get over it.

Merrick Garland should be on the SCOTUS except for that puss-hole Mitch, who held up his nomination until the POS Cheato was in office. Then the far-right GOP Federalist Society judges were given to POS Cheato to nominate, and the GOP crammed them in as fast as possible. Three righties on the court, all of whom lied about stare decisis w/r/t Roe v Wade, which they overturned despite overwhelming public support for legal abortion.

These justices are not technically illegitimate, as you point out, but they should be impeached for lying. And Thomas, who only got his job because he's black, should be impeached for refusing to recuse himself on POS Cheato matters that his wife was heavily involved in, including the Jan. 6 insurrection.

The Roberts Court is a failure and has completely lost the respect of the US public.

Please don’t insult puss-holes by comparing them to vile Moscow Mitch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, I've read all that excellently-written article, and it's clear that in the scenario laid out, that's been corroborated with witnesses and emails, Alito is the only person who could have told the Ohio donors, who then told Schenke. There is no direct evidence that Alito told Mrs. Wright and her husband, but it's the only possible way the thread of info could have been shared.

So yes, Alito is clearly targeted in this article, and with substantive indirect evidence.

Also, Schenke looks completely moronic. He says he now realizes how banning abortion hurts women. What's the real reason he turned his coat?

Yeah, I was wondering about that. He does sound really, really sleazy.
Something else happened. He didn't just see the light.

You can read about it here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/opinion/abortion-schenck.html

[Anonymous]

“Justice Alito appears to be finishing up his summary. No word yet on possible dissent from the bench,” SCOTUSblog writer Amy Howe posted on the site’s live blog at 10:29 a.m. that day.

Yet Schenck’s group issued a media advisory praising Alito’s decision and summoning members of the press to a prayer service scheduled for 10:30 a.m. that morning.”