They can’t stop now, the integrity of the court is at stake!
(irony meters explode)
It seems like they did not:
Sounds a lot like ‘we tried nothing and we’re out of ideas’:
I don’t know who leaked the Dobbs decision, but I’m Alito suspicious.
LOL!! I enjoyed that. 
And I agree.
I read that they didn’t ask or investigate the actual Justices. Can that possibly be true?
I thought so beforehand, but after the final ruling came out, I was even more convinced that it was Alito (or maybe one of his clerks) who leaked it because Kavanaugh was going squishy on the original draft. Kavanaugh’s concurrence almost reads like an apology and you can almost feel the flop-sweat as he tries to downplay the impact of the decision.
I mentioned it before (maybe even in this thread), but Alito’s entire judicial career was leading up to writing this decision. The decision that overturns Roe was always going to be the Mona Lisa of the conservative legal movement. He’d be damned if he was going to let some young, pretty-boy justice concerned about maintain some facade of “moderation” alter one single stroke. And so he leaked the draft so that, if the final draft moderated, conservatives would know it was because one of the justices in the majority (who could only be Kavanaugh) forced him to water down the ruling.
Yeah, and not just accused, but as your quote shows, credibly accused by the person he leaked to, who was a close ally, with corroboration from others that the guy told them beforehand that he knew the outcome of Hobby Lobby. It was Alito.
The minister said that after he learned the outcome from Mrs. Wright in a phone call, he froze. He knew that pending decisions were not supposed to be disclosed, and that sharing the information could hurt everyone involved if it got out.
His wife, Cheryl Schenck, said he was agonized. “The reason I remember is all the stressful machinations on, ‘What should I do with this information?’” Ms. Schenck, a therapist, said in an interview.
Ultimately, Mr. Schenck could not resist using it, he said. Emails he wrote over the following weeks reflect the advance knowledge he said he had of the Hobby Lobby decision. While the outcome was not surprising — the justices’ questions during oral arguments had hinted at it — Mr. Schenck appeared to know that Justice Alito would author the opinion, even though many court watchers expected Chief Justice Roberts to write it.
On June 12, as Mr. Schenck’s team prepared dueling statements for the news media envisioning both a win and a loss, he privately expressed confidence about the ruling to his staff and drafted only a victory message for donors. “I have a Plan B for a different outcome, but from all the information I have, I think this will be it,” he wrote. He included a detailed plan to celebrate their triumph on the steps of the court, where they would drop to their knees in a “prayer of thanksgiving.” When a publicist pointed out there was no message for donors in the event of a loss, he did not email a reply.
I believe it is true, and the fact that the investigation of everyone else found nothing leads me to the conclusion that it was one of the Justices. And they simply don’t want to go there, so it’s head in the sand time.
Actually now they say they “interviewed” the justices. But apparently did not search their phones, question their spouses, etc. So apparently they asked “Did you leak it?” and the replies were “No.”
Joke of an investigation by a joke of a Chief justice.
Wasn’t that pretty much automatic, based on the fact that it was just an internal investigation? It was known at the beginning that the investigation would be completely toothless except where it could coerce the court’s employees into complying.
So by effectively eliminating everyone EXCEPT the Justices themselves as the source of the leak, this investigation has shown that the leak came directly from a Justice, or someone known personally to a Justice. Good job!
Did they have Sergeant Schultz running the investigation?
More likely, Mr. Magoo.
I doubt that they have eliminated everyone except of the judges. There were 80 people who had access to the electronic version of the file, all they had to do with print out a copy at home and anonymously drop it in a mail box to be sent to Politico. How could they have tracked that down, unless the culprit was particularly stupid?
I think the traditions of the court were what protected such documents in the past. When this happened there was a LOT of pearl clutching among lawyers and judges. These things just do not happen!
I expect they will be more careful in the future.
My vote with no evidence is it was Ginni Thomas. Maybe Alito or Clarence.
Prepare to be shocked.
Too many personnel have access to certain Court-sensitive documents. The current distribution mechanisms result in too many people having access to highly sensitive information and the inability to actively track who is handling and accessing these documents. Distribution should be more tailored and the use of hard copies for sensitive documents should be minimized and tightly controlled.
Aside from the Court’s clear confidentiality policies and the federal statutes outlined above, there is no universal written policy or guidance on the mechanics of handling and safeguarding draft opinions and Court-sensitive documents, and practices vary widely throughout the Court. A universal policy should be established and all personnel should receive training on the requirements.
The Court’s current method of destroying Court-sensitive documents has vulnerabilities that should be addressed.
The Court’s information security policies are outdated and need to be clarified and updated. The existing platform for case-related documents appears to be out of date and in need of an overhaul.
There are inadequate safeguards in place to track the printing and copying of sensitive documents. The Court should institute tracking mechanisms using technology that is currently available for this purpose.
Many personnel appear not to have properly understood the Court’s policies on confidentiality. There should be more emphasis on training so that all personnel fully understand the policies.
Bills were introduced in the last Congress which would expressly prohibit the disclosure of the Supreme Court’s non-public case-related information to anyone outside the Court. Consideration should be given to supporting such legislation.
Surely you jest.
You can’t ask a Justice directly if they were the source of the leak. They would be well within their rights to refuse to justify such a question with an answer! I might believe they asked each Justice if they had any information on the leak they would like to share, but even that sounds as if you are impugning the ethical reputation of a Supreme Court Justice. Most likely the interview was more like, “You don’t have anything to do with this, do you (you don’t have to answer that)? I didn’t think so.”