Well, here we are. More than 24 hours after the leak of the now already infamous Alito first draft majority decision overturning Roe v Wade. And already the rumors and theories are spreading hot and thick.
Most pundits and commentators are putting forward that the document must have been leaked by someone in the court who was appalled by the Alito ruling, in order to rally popular protest to the ruling, with the hope that the public pressure would convince at least one justice to change their mind before the final ruling is released.
But on All In with Chris Hayes tonight, Hayes posed an alternate theory that I found both fascinating, as well as compelling. The early working hypothesis is that a disgruntled person leaked the draft ruling in order to turn public pressure against it, and put pressure on the justices to change their mind(s).
But as Chris Hayes posited it tonight, what if the case was exactly the opposite? After all, you have to remember that this was only a first draft, and it spoke of a 5-4 majority decision. Which means the three ultra conservative rockheads, Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch, joined by Kavanaugh and Barrett.
But this is only the first draft. Which means that there have almost certainly been more conferences, wrangling over the wording and extent of the ruling, all kinds of shit. But what if, in the course of all of those conferences and negotiations, one of more of that five member majority started to falter, thinking that the Alito ruling went too far?
What if a sitting conservative justice, or a conservative court clerk, or aide or staff member leaked the draft, in order to pressure any wavering justices back into line? The basic theory being, There ! The decision is out there now. So quit whining, suck it up, and take the final vote!
Granted, this is all nothing but speculation. But when it’s put like that, I can easily see how somebody who has spent their whole life striving to overturn Roe would take that step if they thought that one or more conservative members were considering changing their vote. Just something to think about.
I saw this theory raised starting yesterday evening and more people are suggesting it. It makes a lot of sense, and I wrote a lengthy comment in response to Bareshark’s comment on another article explaining why.
I’m not suggesting one way or the other Denis, but I could easily see how it would be used as a pressure point from the right to force compliance just sd esdily sd s presdssure point from the eft to change minds…Enquiring minds want to know!!! lol
Not saying you’re wrong Joseph but I just can’t imagine sitting on the bench of the highest court in the land and being swayed by what anyone not sitting on it is saying. I mean, thomas has taken some very asinine positions on numerous things, been the only one taking said position, and quite obviously wasn’t swayed by anything other than the dogs barking in his head….or maybe his wife’s barking.
With the very real possibility of reform that totally undermines your current power and status on that court being in play? I’d call that goddamn excellent incentive to not pull that trigger. The open question now (whose answer I could hardly care less about) is whether such a hypothetical twit knew that themselves. Seems unlikely.
Still not buying it as a brilliant strategic move, Denis, sorry. Assuming you’re right, this was absolutely the dumbest thing they could have done.
If the theory I’ve written about is right (IF) I agree that politically it was a stupid move. At the same time, consider what the anti-abortion freaks have done over the decades. Their zealotry has become such they don’t fucking care about anything else including the now quite real political cost of handing Democrats an excellent chance of expanding power for at least two years. ALL they care about is their singular goal of outlawing abortion, and the birth control. Even if it sets back GOP electoral prospects on the national level (and even some at the state level) for several years or more.
Yes, they ARE that stupid and I for one think it might be why Yertle seemed more distraught than angry yesterday when he spoke to the media.
My money is on Clarence and/or Ginni Thomas. She and Clarence Thomas concocted this plan to keep the conservative justices from softening their position. We already know they are both completely craven and lawless.
There’s a missing adjective: clueless.
Want to tell a lie to Congress and get away with it? Supreme Court judges do that and evidently get away scot-free.
Supreme Court nominees can and do, yes. But they are vastly outnumbered by donors, who als can and do.