Posted on 05/12/2022 12:06:35 AM PDT by Impala64ssa
Who leaked the Supreme Court draft opinion in the Dobbs case? It appears to show the Court is ready to overturn Roe v. Wade, which sent liberal America into a tailspin. I mean, we have feminists at full froth even though the ruling won’t ban abortion. This is the result of decades of liberal propaganda and fake legal commentary. No, there is no constitutional right to an abortion. There is no mention of abortion in the founding document, which means it doesn’t prohibit it. You can pass a law and have a legalized right to an abortion if you want. The lack of language about abortion in the Constitution is positive for the pro-life and pro-abortion sides if you want to go down the right path—the legislative one.
But we can’t have that debate now. We’re supposedly on the brink of a total theocracy or something because this leaker decided to blow up the system of trust of professionalism that has marked this institution for 200-plus years. The draft opinion was authenticated by the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts said so in a statement. He has ordered the Marshal of the Supreme Court to investigate the leak. The FBI is going to get involved as well. National Public Radio’s Nina Totenberg, who peddled fake news about the Supreme Court and mask-wearing not so long ago, declared Sunday that the leaker might be a clerk for a conservative jurist. Yeah, slow your roll, Nina. NPR has been straight trash with their reporting. Second, only a rabid pro-abort would do something like this. Sorry, it’s just not in the conservative DNA.
Will Chamberlain of the Internet Accountability Project and Human Events had a lengthy Twitter thread about who this leaker could be and zeroed in on Elizabeth Deutsch. It’s pure speculation based on information from the public domain, but after he makes his case—it sort of sounds like she could fit the bill. She’s a current law clerk for Justice Breyer. Chamberlain leaves it open that he could be wrong about her, but let’s go through what he found:
Here’s where things start to get interesting. Every law student has to write a note – a long legal research paper, usually making a novel argument about the law.
Elizabeth Deutsch wrote hers about reproductive rights and abortion.
Specifically, she argued that Obamacare’s non-discrimination provision should be interpreted to force Catholic hospitals to perform “emergency abortions.”
Aggressive argument – and hey, law students make aggressive arguments.
While in law school she wrote a NYT op-ed about reproductive rights. Sensing a theme here.
… thanks to her NYT wedding announcement (of course), we know that she clerked for judge Nina Pillard.
Pillard was one of the DC Circuit judges appointed by Obama and forced through by Harry Reid blowing up the filibuster.
She’s stridently pro-choice. Perhaps not shocking.
After her clerkships, she got a Gruber fellowship at the ACLU for a full year.
What was she working on?
You guessed it. Abortion and reproductive rights.
But none of this proves anything. Yes, Deutsch’s career seems pretty focused on abortion. But without some connection to Josh Gerstein (the journalist who received the leak opinion) there would be no reason to suspect her.
Let’s go back to that NYT wedding announcement.
“The bride and groom met at Yale. She is a lawyer. He is a journalist.
Isaac Arnsdorf just got hired by the Washington Post as a national political reporter. (Of course he’s on the Trump beat).
But where has he written in the past?
Oh, look. He wrote for POLITICO.
SHARING A BYLINE WITH JOSH GERSTEIN.
There’s also an Indian guy clerking for Sotomayor that was identified as the possible leaker. Interesting that we haven’t heard anything from either or others saying they were not the leaker.
tar & feather
Make an example...
It’s proof positive that a liberal leaked the draft when Nina blames it on the conservatives. Never Trumper Kristol did it too.
Conservatives do not benefit from inciting mob intimidation. It would have much better if the decision was handed down as a fait accompli.
Roberts needs to prove he is innocent.
The leak is so brazen that I believe one of the justices may have condoned, participated in, or done it. Take your pick: The Outgoing Stooge, The Wise Latinx, The Closeted Lesbian, or the The Turncoat Chief.
The media on both sides doesn’t seem to be interested in the leaker anymore. I wonder why?
People seem to keep forgetting that the opinions exist as digital documents on the court’s IT servers and PC’s. Could easily be an IT staffer. Most big copier/printers hold the last X number of print jobs on their internal storage. An IT staffer could have accessed it that way.
Five years and never a law license for Liz and Iman.
Yes, true. Agree that an IT staffer would have the opportunity. My concern would be motive. One of the law clerks or justices easily could have one. Not as confident about an IT staffer, but it is possible.
Motive - Most IT types are libs who would want to be heroes for the cause.
IT staffer? They’re not the ones so likely to have a relationship with the leak recipient in the media. They’re also not likely as ragingly political as constitutional attorneys who have made the realm of governing their life. They’re also not personally vested in the moves and actions of the Court.
$10 says the leak came from John Roberts office.
Most are liberals who belive in their cause and that is all the motive needed. Why do you think some “relationship” is needed with the media is needed? Anyone could easily call any of the major media reporters and tell them you have info. It’s done all the time.
Occam’s Razor.
And I really don’t get your take that most IT staffers are exceptionally liberal. They are very different critters from your usual Silicon Valley activist.
Also, this was clearly coordinated with the Dem political machine that was beyond ready to go, whereas your average IT geek has barely any social skills, let alone political network pull, at all.
Yep. I think the dems got it via surveillance tools set up during the Trump admin or earlier.
Start with the reporter. Hang him upside down til he talks
On the other hand, I’d bet the leaker is long gone, sent out the back door never to be heard from again. I can’t believe the supreme court would allow the leaker creature to keep hanging out there.
That’s very faulty thinking. The IT geek leaks the document months ago. The reporter and their media entity coordinate with Dems.
You’re contorting yourself to promote a possible but very improbable scenario.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.