Thanks!
What is your guess as to who leaked Dobbs? Just curious.
I personally think the Justices themselves are above suspicion, but I haven’t followed this story close enough to go beyond that. As far as I know it could have been a spouse, a staffer, a visitor, even a hacker.
~Max
Yeah, none of us really know. It’s just weird that there was going to be this big investigation and then silence. That makes it more likely to me that it was an insider. Anyway, Discourse is nagging me that I’m replying directly to you too often, so I’ll bow out.
Thanks for the discussion!
my money is on a thomas.
I’m not surprised at all. Ethics were left behind by the Republicans long ago. What makes anyone think that a Republican justice would have any ethics?
Alternatively, it might mean that the investigation came up dry. It’s not clear how tight security was on the copies of the decision. They may have been relying primarily on the honor system. If it was the least bit lax then it would be pretty easy to take it home make a copy and send it anonymously to a reporter, leaving no evidence to investigate.
Hopefully this isn’t too much of a zombification, but it’s something I would not have expected:
Granted that I hadn’t given any thought to South Carolina post-Dobbs (if I had, I would have assumed it was done ‘n’ dusted — I was kind of surprised that the ban made exceptions for rape and incest).
Since my mind tends to curl up in a ball and whimper when legal matters come up, I’ll toss this out for those more astute: can this be challenged in Federal court? If I read the article aright, the ban as written was overturned because it ran afoul of the right to privacy guaranteed by the State constitution. This implies (to me) that the State constitution grants a greater right to privacy than the US constitution, at least as far as reproduction is concerned. Could a Federal court rule that the State cannot grant greater constitutional rights than the US? My snap answer would be “no,” but obviously I have no basis for saying that; opinions pro or con would be appreciated.
The States are free to provide greater protections than those found in the US Constitution. The SCOTUS shouldn’t get involved in this. These days, it’s hard to say.
The news reports I heard on CNN said that because it was based on the state constitution it couldn’t get kicked over to the federal courts. The legislature can always attempt to write a new statute that will pass state constitutional muster, of course.
These people make my head hurt
We must stop oppressing the people who want to subdue those nuisance females!