Tue May 3, 2022, 06:00 PM
fescuerescue (4,110 posts)
Were any laws broken by releasing the SC decision early?
Certainly confidentiality agreements and at least a few people will lose their careers. (responsible or not)
But I'm wondering. What law protects this information? It's not like the military, where there a many many laws covering classified information etc.
|
26 replies, 1034 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
fescuerescue | May 3 | OP |
J_William_Ryan | May 3 | #1 | |
PoliticAverse | May 3 | #2 | |
fescuerescue | May 3 | #4 | |
Ocelot II | May 3 | #6 | |
PoliticAverse | May 3 | #8 | |
gldstwmn | May 3 | #16 | |
PoliticAverse | May 3 | #17 | |
PSPS | May 3 | #18 | |
gldstwmn | May 3 | #23 | |
PoliticAverse | May 3 | #24 | |
RobinA | May 4 | #26 | |
Tickle | May 3 | #3 | |
Phoenix61 | May 3 | #19 | |
pwb | May 3 | #5 | |
PoliticAverse | May 3 | #9 | |
ZonkerHarris | May 3 | #10 | |
PoliticAverse | May 3 | #11 | |
ZonkerHarris | May 3 | #12 | |
PoliticAverse | May 3 | #14 | |
Ocelot II | May 3 | #13 | |
ZonkerHarris | May 3 | #15 | |
fescuerescue | May 4 | #25 | |
InAbLuEsTaTe | May 3 | #7 | |
LetMyPeopleVote | May 3 | #20 | |
onenote | May 3 | #21 | |
brooklynite | May 3 | #22 |
Response to fescuerescue (Original post)
Tue May 3, 2022, 06:01 PM
J_William_Ryan (1,295 posts)
1. No.
Response to fescuerescue (Original post)
Tue May 3, 2022, 06:01 PM
PoliticAverse (26,233 posts)
2. Ashton Fox Embry who leaked a Supreme Court decision was indicted...
to deprive the United States of its lawful right and duty of promulgating information in the way and at the time required by law and at departmental regulation.
See: https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/clerk-thief-his-life-baker-visiting-judge-tells-story-1919-supreme-court-leak https://calapplaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/2019.02.25-Appellate-Zealots-BF-on-Selling-secrets-The-disturbing-tale-of-Supreme-Court-clerk-Ashton-Embry.pdf Realistically, the only punishment the current leaker likely faces is being fired. |
Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #2)
Tue May 3, 2022, 06:04 PM
fescuerescue (4,110 posts)
4. Thanks. I hadn't heard of this one.
Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #2)
Tue May 3, 2022, 06:08 PM
Ocelot II (100,817 posts)
6. Very different situation having to do with using inside court information
for financial gain. Laws have changed a lot since 1919.
|
Response to Ocelot II (Reply #6)
Tue May 3, 2022, 06:11 PM
PoliticAverse (26,233 posts)
8. The law he was indicted on did not involve financial gain.
> Laws have changed a lot since 1919.
The second article I linked to suggests other laws that might cover the issue. |
Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #2)
Tue May 3, 2022, 06:21 PM
gldstwmn (3,918 posts)
16. They're a federal employee so termination is highly unlikely.
Is someone really trying to assert that after ruling a woman doesn't have a right to privacy that the court has a right to privacy with this decision? That's preposterous.
|
Response to gldstwmn (Reply #16)
Tue May 3, 2022, 06:26 PM
PoliticAverse (26,233 posts)
17. If the leaker is a Supreme Court clerk they'd be "gone in 20 seconds"... n/t
Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #17)
Tue May 3, 2022, 07:35 PM
PSPS (12,401 posts)
18. Yes, gone. But no laws were broken.
Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #17)
Tue May 3, 2022, 10:43 PM
gldstwmn (3,918 posts)
23. Have you ever tried to fire a federal employee?
Do you remember Linda Tripp? Also you're assuming it's a clerk. What if it's not?
|
Response to gldstwmn (Reply #23)
Tue May 3, 2022, 10:50 PM
PoliticAverse (26,233 posts)
24. I was not assuming, which is why I wrote "if"......
> What if it's not?
When a government employee responsible for printing the court's final opinions was suspected of leaking he just got transferred. |
Response to gldstwmn (Reply #16)
Wed May 4, 2022, 12:14 PM
RobinA (8,847 posts)
26. Well, They Want
the freedom not to wear a mask or get vaxed, but they won't extend freedom to a pregnant woman.
|
Response to fescuerescue (Original post)
Tue May 3, 2022, 06:01 PM
Tickle (1,080 posts)
3. I don't think so
I've been trying to find out. The only thing that seems consistent from reading is the person is going to get disbarred.
I think that is it |
Response to Tickle (Reply #3)
Tue May 3, 2022, 07:41 PM
Phoenix61 (13,102 posts)
19. I doubt they'd be disbarred. Very few attorneys are. nt
Response to fescuerescue (Original post)
Tue May 3, 2022, 06:08 PM
pwb (8,581 posts)
5. Got to keep our eye on the ball here.
Who leaked matters not. The opinion is the ball. IMO.
|
Response to pwb (Reply #5)
Tue May 3, 2022, 06:12 PM
ZonkerHarris (20,841 posts)
10. The leaker is a hero and needs to be helped or protected if possible
Response to ZonkerHarris (Reply #10)
Tue May 3, 2022, 06:15 PM
PoliticAverse (26,233 posts)
11. If the leaker is pro-choice they'll be treated as a hero by those that agree and
will likely have lots of well paid speaking engagements ahead.
|
Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #11)
Tue May 3, 2022, 06:16 PM
ZonkerHarris (20,841 posts)
12. I'd love to handle their book and movie deal.
That's my day job
|
Response to ZonkerHarris (Reply #12)
Tue May 3, 2022, 06:19 PM
PoliticAverse (26,233 posts)
14. I'm curious if you know offhand what type of advance people in similar situations have gotten. n/t
Response to ZonkerHarris (Reply #10)
Tue May 3, 2022, 06:16 PM
Ocelot II (100,817 posts)
13. Not necessarily. There is speculation that the leaker came from the anti-Roe bloc
and that it was intended to keep the conservative justices from changing their positions before final publication. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/03/alito-roe-leaked-draft-disaster-for-supreme-court/ There was little to be gained by pro-Roe advocates by releasing information a bit early that everyone expected anyhow. Cui bono? Not the liberals.
|
Response to Ocelot II (Reply #13)
Tue May 3, 2022, 06:19 PM
ZonkerHarris (20,841 posts)
15. interesting theory. If so then it feels like a fire you start to put out another fire but gets
out of control on you.
|
Response to pwb (Reply #5)
Wed May 4, 2022, 12:07 PM
fescuerescue (4,110 posts)
25. Most of us are capable of maintaining more than one thought throughout the day
I don't think the question is out of line.
ANd I think it does matter. Especially if it turns out the leaker is right wing. |
Response to fescuerescue (Original post)
Tue May 3, 2022, 06:09 PM
InAbLuEsTaTe (23,645 posts)
7. Zero chance of that.
Response to fescuerescue (Original post)
Tue May 3, 2022, 08:30 PM
LetMyPeopleVote (113,621 posts)
20. What we know about the investigation into the Supreme Court leak-What Crime is at play
There is no crime at play here
Link to tweet https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/03/politics/supreme-court-leak-investigation/index.html?utm_term=link&utm_source=twCNNp&utm_content=2022-05-03T23%3A43%3A04&utm_medium=social 's unclear what crime could be investigated and whether the FBI and the Justice Department have the authority to look into a leak that doesn't have to do with classified or sensitive information.
Moreover, after leading politically sensitive investigations of presidential candidates and a sitting president in recent years, Justice Department and FBI officials are loath to get the bureau involved in what may end up being a political effort to try to affect the outcome of the court's final opinion in the case. "Leaks of government information, by themselves, are not crimes," said Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst who's a professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "Usually, leakers are prosecuted for leaking classified information, which this isn't, or for offenses related to how they obtained the information they leaked." "But without one of those hooks, or some kind of financial harm to the government arising from the leak, there's no federal criminal statute that makes leaking of simply confidential governmental information unlawful," Vladeck added. |
Response to fescuerescue (Original post)
Tue May 3, 2022, 08:40 PM
onenote (37,385 posts)
21. Maybe none. But see this:
Response to fescuerescue (Original post)
Tue May 3, 2022, 08:43 PM
brooklynite (79,470 posts)