There’s an old saying, history is made at night and it was made last night. Rulings from the Supreme Court have been leaked before, but never an opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts is said to be incensed and looking for the culprit. How about an ultra conservative?

And of course Ginni Thomas’ name has come up with respect to the leak.

 

Help keep the site running, consider supporting.

6 COMMENTS

  1. My money is on Ginni Thomas e-mailing it to a former clerk of her husband, so that it could be leaked. The investigation that Chief Roberts has instigated will reveal no current justice, clerk or other employee of the SC is responsible. It’s the only thing that makes sense – Clarence brought home a paper copy, Ginni scanned and e-mailed (something she has done a lot of in the past) and a former acolyte dutifully leaked. And it probably was done to lock in the five votes.

    • Fuck. For all we know that grease-bag alito “leaked” it himself. WTF difference does it really make? None.

      My suggestion is for everyone going to protest in front of the s.c. building GO ARMED! A) why should cons have all the fun and B) scare a few years off of those “lifetime term”. Both alito and thomas look like they are close to coronaries so let’s help them get where they so obviously wish to go and let us do so quickly.

      I am sick to fucking death of cons being the only ones bringing guns to a gun-fight. Women are going lose their lives over the misogyny of some of the most legally unqualified political hacks on the planet. It’s way past time to stop this but it must be stopped. I can guarantee one thing: should any of the women in my circle of family and friends lose their lives over this piece of shit decision, some s.c.’s WILL be losing theirs.

      2
      2
      • Spike, I appreciate your passion but I have to caution you not to threaten violence. Violence is for the MAGAs, not us.

        • Ursula, violence is about to take out a lot of women with this decision. Rationality has gotten us exactly nowhere. The ‘pubes, tea-baggers, magats, etc. have gotten what they wanted and this is not going to satisfy, or at least not for long. I’ve been watching this since I was first old enough to vote-this attack on women, on my sister, her daughter, my friends. I for one do not want to lose my sister’s daughter, my friends or their daughters, to this blatant violent decision. I know what needs to be done but I will ask you: what now Ursula? Oh, and what about the women and girls who will die because of this decision starting THIS JULY when all those laws automatically and immediately go into effect?

          So, while you’re being all “ooh, we can’t do what needs to be done because….reasons”, what about all the females who will be losing their lives. You know, at this point, I’m not even thinking about the loss of their privacy and other civil rights, I’m only thinking about the deaths.

          So, yeah Ursula–what now? What is the rational response to what will amount to a death sentence? I’m going to fight to save women’s lives. What are you going to do? Vote? Because that has worked so well for women thus far?

          I hope you are actually seeing what will be the future for women. If my “passion” has gotten your attention, I sure hope the reason for that “passion” has showed up on your radar.

          1
          2
  2. I have been thinking that despite this being written in February, the consensus of the court must be the same now. This discussion makes me think that the leaker wants it to be this way, and leaking forces their hand.

  3. Yeah, no, too much of that theory assumes a) that we’re talking about the old perception of liberals in action or b) that the leaker was thinking the blowback would be beneficial to the ultra-conservative cause over the long term. When you remember that this year is midterms and you want the focus to be there at the right time, you leak it in the spring so that the rage can sustain itself straight into the fall.

    I say all this because NOBODY on our side gives a damn about anything BUT the consequences of such a ruling. And with one month before it becomes official, there’s more than enough time to push SCOTUS to change it. Kapcynzski is invoking less Ocaam’s Razor and more Pavlov’s Prejudices here.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

The maximum upload file size: 128 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop files here