BillsFanNC Posted April 29, 2023 Posted April 29, 2023 He added “It was a part of an effort to prevent the Dobbs draft…from becoming the decision of the court. And that’s how it was used for those six weeks by people on the outside—as part of the campaign to try to intimidate the court.” Alito’s statement contradicts those in the media like NPR’s Nina Totenberg who insisted that “the only [theory] that makes sense” is that a conservative leaked the opinion. At the time, I criticized Totenberg’s claim as entirely unsupported and illogical 1
BillsFanNC Posted April 29, 2023 Author Posted April 29, 2023 Remember @ChiGoose told us that it must have been a conservative clerk who leaked it.....to Politico! 1 2
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted April 30, 2023 Posted April 30, 2023 10 hours ago, BillsFanNC said: Remember @ChiGoose told us that it must have been a conservative clerk who leaked it.....to Politico! Religiously right
BillStime Posted April 30, 2023 Posted April 30, 2023 Just now, Over 29 years of fanhood said: Religiously right That's right bro
BillsFanNC Posted April 30, 2023 Author Posted April 30, 2023 Dobbs leaker? Nada Flynn call leaker? Bupkis Steele dossier leaker? Try again Etc etc... Discord leaker? All over it like flies on a ribroast. Useful idiots indeed. 1
Tiberius Posted April 30, 2023 Posted April 30, 2023 20 hours ago, BillsFanNC said: Remember @ChiGoose told us that it must have been a conservative clerk who leaked it.....to Politico! Remember when the Trump judges said Roe was settled law? Ya, trust this correct scum bags 1
Doc Posted April 30, 2023 Posted April 30, 2023 40 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Remember when the Trump judges said Roe was settled law? Ya, trust this correct scum bags It having been from a liberal SCJ underling makes the most sense. And thank the JWHO for allowing Roe to be overturned. 1
Tiberius Posted April 30, 2023 Posted April 30, 2023 59 minutes ago, Doc said: It having been from a liberal SCJ underling makes the most sense. And thank the JWHO for allowing Roe to be overturned. They lied at confirmation about it.
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 2, 2023 Posted May 2, 2023 What makes the most sense is that it was Roberts or Alito... ...In order to get security in place. The decision was coming out anyway, they'd have no time to get the fences up and secure the lives of the justices if the conservatives didn't leak it. I have suspected Robert's since day one. 1 1 2
Pokebball Posted May 2, 2023 Posted May 2, 2023 On 4/30/2023 at 10:03 AM, Tiberius said: They lied at confirmation about it. What was the lie(s) in your opinion?
LeviF Posted May 3, 2023 Posted May 3, 2023 15 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said: What makes the most sense is that it was Roberts or Alito... ...In order to get security in place. The decision was coming out anyway, they'd have no time to get the fences up and secure the lives of the justices if the conservatives didn't leak it. I have suspected Robert's since day one. The Supreme Court has their own federal police force which answers to the Court only. Your suspicion is based on a faulty premise. In re Totenberg, she was caught out already, as I described here: 1 1
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 3, 2023 Posted May 3, 2023 9 minutes ago, LeviF said: The Supreme Court has their own federal police force which answers to the Court only. Your suspicion is based on a faulty premise. In re Totenberg, she was caught out already, as I described here: Wrong. Not a faulty premise. If they (whoever) start putting fences up around The Court a month before the decision. You don't think people will ask questions? Doesn't matter if they got their own police force. Failing to plan is planning to fail. 2 1
LeviF Posted May 3, 2023 Posted May 3, 2023 7 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said: Wrong. Not a faulty premise. If they (whoever) start putting fences up around The Court a month before the decision. You don't think people will ask questions? Doesn't matter if they got their own police force. Failing to plan is planning to fail. You implied that they needed a leak to get security in place. That is demonstrably false. The big brain logic that leads to thinking like "hmm we need to bolster security, but our press rep who never takes questions and produces about 20 releases a year would face humongous pressure to answer for it! What should we do???" is fairly common in the federal government but unlikely in the one room where the mean IQ is probably somewhere around 135. 1 2
Tiberius Posted May 3, 2023 Posted May 3, 2023 6 minutes ago, LeviF said: You implied that they needed a leak to get security in place. That is demonstrably false. The big brain logic that leads to thinking like "hmm we need to bolster security, but our press rep who never takes questions and produces about 20 releases a year would face humongous pressure to answer for it! What should we do???" is fairly common in the federal government but unlikely in the one room where the mean IQ is probably somewhere around 135. No, it makes sense
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 3, 2023 Posted May 3, 2023 (edited) 15 minutes ago, LeviF said: You implied that they needed a leak to get security in place. That is demonstrably false. The big brain logic that leads to thinking like "hmm we need to bolster security, but our press rep who never takes questions and produces about 20 releases a year would face humongous pressure to answer for it! What should we do???" is fairly common in the federal government but unlikely in the one room where the mean IQ is probably somewhere around 135. Simply wrong. The conservatives leaked it for security purposes. If the decision was the other way, the liberals would have leaked it. Sometimes it's the simplest answer. The justices were at each about this. But they are cool now. Back to being in their Ivory Tower Club. Edited May 3, 2023 by ExiledInIllinois
LeviF Posted May 3, 2023 Posted May 3, 2023 2 minutes ago, Tiberius said: No, it makes sense Let's go down this road: A lawyer and jurist with decades of experience and degrees from some combination of Princeton, Yale, and Harvard looked at the decision, said "you know, there might be an issue with security once this is released," and instead of quietly increasing security close to decision drop or simply waiting until the justices had cleared the building before dropping it like a bomb as they scooted off for their end-of-term vacation decided to leak the decision, betraying their office, their fellow justices, and the profession they've built their lives around and climbed to the highest pinnacle of, three months in advance? To justify putting a fence up for three months when a week would have been sufficient at the end of the term? And you think this is more likely than some bigmad leftist shrike with all of six months of a clerkship under their belt as their law "practice" experience dropping it to a left-friendly reporter? Big brain stuff indeed. Just now, ExiledInIllinois said: Simply wrong. The conservatives leaked it for security purposes. If the decision was the other way, the liberals would have leaked it. Sometimes it's the simplest answer. The justices were at each about this. Bit they are cool now. Back to being in their Ivory Tower Club. Yeah, as detailed above, that's definitely the simplest answer. This is @ieatcrayonz level occum's shaver type stuff. 1
Recommended Posts