US Elections (& Politics) :)

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com www.zerohedge.com


the Court does not by now know who leaked the opinion, it would seem to constitute a breathtaking display of incompetence.

If the Court does know who leaked the opinion, yet for whatever reason is sitting on its findings, it would seem to constitute a breathtaking display of politics.

That’s because, on the merits, the silence is indefensible.

What could be of greater import to the institution’s integrity and credibility than to demonstrate that it will stop at nothing to, and with great haste, find and bring to justice an individual who would so grievously undermine the Court’s ability to do its most basic duty: deliberate, discreetly and insulated from political pressure and intimidation.

Silence on the leak probe only compounds the error of not ruling expeditiously in the wake of the leak, which fueled what else but a campaign of political pressure and intimidation up to and including threats to the life and limb of the judges.

Does the chief justice, so attuned to public opinion about the Court, think the probe can be cast as some kind of internal matter to be handled privately, and made to fade into the ether?

Do the findings implicate one or several justices, and as such, is the chief justice unsure how to proceed with the public?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oceanslider, Ssayer, 00Buck and 2 others
bigredfish said:
the Court does not by now know who leaked the opinion, it would seem to constitute a breathtaking display of incompetence.
Click to expand...


That's a little bit harsh. I could understand your point of view if the document was never intended to be public, but Court Decisions, and for that matter all business of the Court, are generally meant to be publicly available on the principle that justice must be done and be seen to be done. I think it's unreasonable to expect that they would take the time to add in the document protection measures that would make identifying who leaked the copy straight forward, when the document was always going to be public eventually.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Parley and 00Buck
SyconsciousAu said:
That's a little bit harsh. I could understand your point of view if the document was never intended to be public, but Court Decisions, and for that matter all business of the Court, are generally meant to be publicly available on the principle that justice must be done and be seen to be done. I think it's unreasonable to expect that they would take the time to add in the document protection measures that would make identifying who leaked the copy straight forward, when the document was always going to be public eventually.
Click to expand...
There would have been no reason to leak a done deal as you propose it was. It would have only been done with the purpose of trying to influence the final outcome, if thats not the case, there should have been an immediate, yup, here it is,
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ssayer, Parley, bigredfish and 1 other person
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: sebastiantombs, Oceanslider and Ssayer
mbuster said:
It would have only been done with the purpose of trying to influence the final outcome,
Click to expand...

Of course it could ONLY be that right? Imagine if you found yourself in a set of unfortunate circumstances that resulted in a Police Investigation. How would you feel if the investigating Detective chose to ignore all of the other perfectly reasonable explanations that would explain the circumstances you found yourself in, and decided that the ONLY explanation was that you had committed a criminal offence. Sure it's convenient and saves a the Detective involved a lot of that nasty thinking that you have to do when you are obliged by ethics and professionalism to actually consider everything in front of you, not just the explanation that fits in nicely with your personal narrative.

Even if it was leaked with the purpose of trying to influence the outcome, why does that leak have to have come from within SCOTUS at all? Remember Claudia Conway? Or the most boring explanation of all. Unintentional loss of control of a sensitive document.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lyudmila
Parley said:
I saw where there is to be no support for President Trump on Fox News. I have dumped Fox News.
Click to expand...
Oh, that's a given with me as well. I've already quit viewing Fox Sports as well, another Murdoch holding, some time ago. :confused:
 
  • Like
Reactions: gwminor48, sebastiantombs, Ssayer and 2 others
Censorship is embraced by the feeble minded, pathetically insecure, and low IQ individuals, who can’t defend their views in factual or reasonable debate.

They are nothing more than petulant emotionally immature children.
(Which accounts for the vast majority of liberal “progressive” Democrats)

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com www.zerohedge.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: Parley, samplenhold, sebastiantombs and 3 others
bigredfish said:
Censorship is embraced by the feeble minded, pathetically insecure, and low IQ individuals, who can’t defend their views in factual or reasonable debate.

They are nothing more than petulant emotionally immature children.
(Which accounts for the vast majority of liberal “progressive” Democrats)

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com www.zerohedge.com
Click to expand...

+1^^^.
Heck, some outlets/organizations/clubs/cliques/clans/whatever term preaching the Bible as "hate speech."
 
  • Like
  • Sad
  • Angry
Reactions: gwminor48, Parley, samplenhold and 5 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom