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

Forum Index » Political Discussion

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][b]To call this story uncorroborated is to overstate its credibility.[/b] 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.

[b]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.[/b] 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.

[b]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.[/b]

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

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.[/quote]
I seem to remember after [i]someone[/i] 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. [/quote]

And before that it seemed like they had been leaked to.

“Yet, other parts of the editorial left me concerned. Indeed, while reading the piece, I had flashbacks to NFIB v. Sebelius and Bostock. In both cases, rumors began to swirl that a conservative Justice was going to vote with the left. And, in both cases, there was a sustained public relations campaign on the right to shore up the wavering Justice. And, in neither case did those efforts work. I wrote about the Obamacare leaks in my first book, Unprecedented, and I wrote about potential leaks in Bostock here. Back to the present.

The WSJ editorial on Dobbs begins with a lengthy discussion of a "ferocious lobbying campaign." But there is nothing new here. Really, there is a hodgepodge of agitations from pro-choice groups. We are five months from oral arguments. Why write something now? As I read the first few paragraphs, I thought, okay they are setting up something far more important. Then we get to a section break with three asterisks. The editorial sketches out, at a very high level, what is going on behind the scenes.”
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/04/27/the-wsj-is-worried-about-the-chief-justice-turning-votes-in-dobbs/?amp[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics