The Supreme Court clearly *could* have done more to get to the bottom of the Dobbs leak. Whether it *should* have raises messier questions about the Court's relationship with the executive branch.
I know when this investigation started to spin up, there was some discussion of just how far (de facto as opposed to de jure) the Chief could go (or authorize the marshal to go) without having buy-in from his colleagues, especially when it came to the clerks. Probably hard to tell since the bulk of the report is from the Marshal, but were you able to glean anything regarding to what extent this was “The Chief Justice” versus “The Justices/The Court”? May be some inside baseball peculiar to the institution that’s hard to judge without being on the inside, but it would be interesting to know how much the justices collectively or certain justices in particular were able to steer the course of the investigation by taking steps like putting a foot down and saying “no I’m not ok with the unilateral polygraphing of my clerks.”
Or that the Court has ruled that Polygraphs are not admissible in Court. As a former Prosecutor, Polygraphs are requested to see the response of a witness upon asking them to submit to a polygraph. That response then drives the investigation. They are not used for their responses to the questions, as some suspect. Interestingly a Public Defender's office in Nevada once used them to see which of their clients were innocent or guilty and then that determined how much effort and resources to be put in the case. When that got brought out, that PD office was promptly sued by its own clients.
It was mentioned that several Supreme Court Justices admitted to telling thier spouses about the decision. I confess, my first thought jumped to Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginny. I'm not familiar with the other wives of the Justices, perhaps that is why she came to mind. However, she would also have opportunity and motive. I realize that this is nothing but speculation. I wonder if further investigation is continuing? Or if rules are being considered for future prevention?
Cynthia: Nowhere did it say that the Justices admitted to telling their spouses (or revealing vote counts) just that some of those interviewed had done that, but did not reveal if they were clerks or Justices. Having said that, I agree that it probably were Justices that did that, as how many in the clerk class were even married. I believe it said spouses and partners though.
Oh, ok! I misunderstood that.! So that actually makes more sense to me. I guess I jumped to the conclusion, because as a whole it really does seem as if the Justices or thier spouses would have the ability (if not motive) to leak as deftly as it was done. It's been rumored to be Alito himself, which seems far fetched. It's all pretty crazy.. Thank you for the clarification 😎
I know when this investigation started to spin up, there was some discussion of just how far (de facto as opposed to de jure) the Chief could go (or authorize the marshal to go) without having buy-in from his colleagues, especially when it came to the clerks. Probably hard to tell since the bulk of the report is from the Marshal, but were you able to glean anything regarding to what extent this was “The Chief Justice” versus “The Justices/The Court”? May be some inside baseball peculiar to the institution that’s hard to judge without being on the inside, but it would be interesting to know how much the justices collectively or certain justices in particular were able to steer the course of the investigation by taking steps like putting a foot down and saying “no I’m not ok with the unilateral polygraphing of my clerks.”
Polygraph? Perhaps the Justices and the Marshal are aware that polygraphs catch high-strung, nervous people, not guilty people.
Or that the Court has ruled that Polygraphs are not admissible in Court. As a former Prosecutor, Polygraphs are requested to see the response of a witness upon asking them to submit to a polygraph. That response then drives the investigation. They are not used for their responses to the questions, as some suspect. Interestingly a Public Defender's office in Nevada once used them to see which of their clients were innocent or guilty and then that determined how much effort and resources to be put in the case. When that got brought out, that PD office was promptly sued by its own clients.
It was mentioned that several Supreme Court Justices admitted to telling thier spouses about the decision. I confess, my first thought jumped to Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginny. I'm not familiar with the other wives of the Justices, perhaps that is why she came to mind. However, she would also have opportunity and motive. I realize that this is nothing but speculation. I wonder if further investigation is continuing? Or if rules are being considered for future prevention?
Cynthia: Nowhere did it say that the Justices admitted to telling their spouses (or revealing vote counts) just that some of those interviewed had done that, but did not reveal if they were clerks or Justices. Having said that, I agree that it probably were Justices that did that, as how many in the clerk class were even married. I believe it said spouses and partners though.
Oh, ok! I misunderstood that.! So that actually makes more sense to me. I guess I jumped to the conclusion, because as a whole it really does seem as if the Justices or thier spouses would have the ability (if not motive) to leak as deftly as it was done. It's been rumored to be Alito himself, which seems far fetched. It's all pretty crazy.. Thank you for the clarification 😎