How come we don’t know the name of the leaker? I will bet that they found out who it was rather quickly, but have now moved into the cover-up stage so as to not make the Media-Dem Party look bad.
It's exceedingly rare for the identiny of a leaker to be broadcast in the media. I can only think of three big cases (there may have been more, but I think these give good context): the Valerie Plame leaker (where leaking the name of the original leaker served the media), Bradley Manning (where the leaker confided in someone who was appalled at the nature of the leak), and Snowden (where the leaker wanted notoriety and the government wanted to prove he was a spy and inflict a world of pain on him).
The media generally won't release the name of a leaker because they claim it's against their ethics. They have no ethics, what they have is a vehicle for sources that they're unwilling to burn. This works both ways though, it's not just left leaning leaks that get out, though the media having a lot of control over what stories get spread widely, it creates an appearance of bias because it is biased.
The government rarely admits to leaks because a lot of leaks are approved, or come from someone who can't be punished for leaking. Adam Schiff was and is a walking criminal act if he isn't a sitting congressman. He not only leaked classified information as he was being briefed on it (like, he would get a briefing, then ask to go to the bathroom and them be on the cell phone with a reporter... that fast), but because classified information isn't readily available for the public to view, he leaked inaccurate information that supported his public claims. Just making things up out of whole cloth in some cases. He used this tactic repeatedly and managed to convince the House to impeach President Trump using these outright lies... and he's still doing it because he can.
Finally, and probably most appropriate for this case of the Supreme Court leak, the government has a vested interest in making the problem go away quietly. They will claim it's needed to preserve the institution's reputation or trust or something. The leaker in this case, which I understand to be one of only a possible pool of about 30 people, may lose his or her job, may even lose his or her law license, but because of the notoriety tied to the leak, that person will almost certainly end up getting rewarded with a book deal, speaking gigs, and a job with some abortion think tank or lobbying firm. The name will come out eventually, because if the Supreme Court quietly punishes and fires that person, he or she won't be able to cash in on the notoriety... also, it will be conspicuous for a former Supreme Court clerk to suddenly abandon a law license without explaination.
That would be one of the easiest things to discover, considering the technology forensics that are used today. That it hasn't happened yet makes me highly suspicious of Roberts.