Can you imagine standing opposite this guy at trial and in his best Andy Griffith he says "Now I'm just a simple country lawyer." You'd be fooked
The Draft Was "Authentic" - Justice Roberts
- Thread starter MyTeamIsOnTheFloor
- Start date
So...
I'll bet every conservative lawyer on this board likes to think they are Matlock.
Of course you don’t care if it’s overturned. Many men don’t. Women on the other hand….
Jan. 6 broke an unprecedented barrier also. What does being done by dinner have to do with anything?
The draft opinion is government property. It was taken and given to a news publication. Theft.
The Constitution allows both houses of Congress to create their own rules for confirmation proceedings. I don't think the vision, though, was to allow them to just make up those rules as they go along and change them on the political whims of a chamber leader.
“Your honor, they were finished by dinner time, so it couldn’t have been an insurrection. I mean, these things take time, right?”
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Great clip. I've never seen the movie. Going to watch it soon.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
What is the "property?" The physical paper? The information? What if it was photocopied? Emailed? If the "information" is the property, what is the value of that? $0.01? $1,000,000?
Do you have a statute you can refer us to?
I mean, I'm just an uneducated ole' Hoosier, born and reared in the cornfields of Indiana, but in my law learnin', we were told in this great country that all laws had to be written down and that you couldn't just be sent to jail 'cause someone says you done wrong. Nope, you had the right, the God Given right some would say, to see what that law was that you broke, to read it, right there on the page to see what you could and couldn't do. As my granddad always said, a man has a right to see what he done that was wrong if the gummint gonna lock him up in the slammer. At least that's how I was raised.
Theft
Obstruction of Justice
IMHO, it's only theft if it was taken by the leaker as opposed to given to the leaker. "Wrongfully takes" is a statutory requirement.
As I recall there are different federal obstruction charges, but I don't see how any of them would have elements that would fit.
According to Wired, there's possibly some obscure federal law that could apply. LINK.
Obstruction of Justice
IMHO, it's only theft if it was taken by the leaker as opposed to given to the leaker. "Wrongfully takes" is a statutory requirement.
As I recall there are different federal obstruction charges, but I don't see how any of them would have elements that would fit.
According to Wired, there's possibly some obscure federal law that could apply. LINK.
That appears unknown. But I am sure they had to sign some confidentiality agreements. At a minimum they can lose their job (assuming it isn't a Justice).
Is Leaking a Supreme Court Opinion a Crime? The Law Is Far From Clear
The leak of a draft opinion overturning ‘Roe v. Wade’ quickly sparked a court investigation. Which laws may have been violated, if any, remains uncertain.www.wired.com
they must have signed CAs and should not only lose their job but be chastised and civilly prosecuted.
if it were a justice, what would be the potential options for the court? That would be an even more concerning revelation
If this leak is used as a come to jesus moment for all of this crap that goes on in DC, then so be it. Find this person, hell find someone who may be only 14th cousins of this leaker, give them 30 years and set an example.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
The first link is to the Code of Military Justice so probably doesn't apply here.
The second, obstruction of justice link, doesn't seem to apply to this situation:
- § 1501. Assault on process server
- § 1502. Resistance to extradition agent
- § 1503. Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally
- § 1504. Influencing juror by writing
- § 1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
- § 1506. Theft or alteration of record or process; false bail
- § 1507. Picketing or parading
- § 1508. Recording, listening to, or observing proceedings of grand or petit juries while deliberating or voting
- § 1509. Obstruction of court orders
- § 1510. Obstruction of criminal investigations
- § 1511. Obstruction of State or local law enforcement
- § 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
- § 1513. Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant
- § 1514. Civil action to restrain harassment of a victim or witness
- § 1514A. Civil action to protect against retaliation in fraud cases
- § 1515. Definitions for certain provisions; general provision
- § 1516. Obstruction of Federal audit
- § 1517. Obstructing examination of financial institution
- § 1518. Obstruction of criminal investigations of health care offenses
- § 1519. Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy
- § 1520. Destruction of corporate audit records
- § 1521. Retaliating against a Federal judge or Federal law enforcement officer by false claim or slander of title
That’s not a serious poster and should be ignored.You keep saying it, but yet there is no Constitutional provision, no statute and no case that says that. So…
The cover-up could be the crime, if someone is caught lying to federal agents. Just read that the original Roe decision was leaked to Time magazine before it was officially released. The clerk confessed but was apparently not fired.
It seems more and more posters are becoming afflicted of this.
If your boss sends you an "internal only" memo and you leak it, have you committed a crime? You had legal access to the memo.
I deal frequently with people who have disclaimers on their email that 5heir email is confidential and not for anyone but the recipient. I heard a lawyer at a security conference say 5hat disclaimer had no legal force whatsoever.
This is slightly different from 5he email, but I really do not know if me leaking an "internal" memo is illegal.
All that said, it is a cause for firing and a civil suit.
I deal frequently with people who have disclaimers on their email that 5heir email is confidential and not for anyone but the recipient. I heard a lawyer at a security conference say 5hat disclaimer had no legal force whatsoever.
This is slightly different from 5he email, but I really do not know if me leaking an "internal" memo is illegal.
All that said, it is a cause for firing and a civil suit.
The Rosenbergs? January 6? Utterly ridiculous.
Whoever did this should and will lose their job. That's it.
There's no criminal statute that prohibits leaking draft judicial opinions (lol), and government leaks (absent national security implications) are rarely prosecuted.
Last edited:
The inverse of My Cousin Vinny. @TMFT pretending to be a country bumpkin and waxing overpaid sharks in NYC billing $1,500/hr.
Why would that be a "very good possibility?" I think that's hardly a possibility at all. I can't think of any logical reasons he'd do it. I don't think any of the justices did it, but if one did it, it's much more logical that one of the potential dissenters did it than Alito. It's most likely a clerk of one of those justices in my opinion.
Could you be a little more sensitive and inclusive?!? Birthing persons care 😗
Probably about 43 percent of women would like to see it overturned.
'Pro-Choice' or 'Pro-Life' Demographic Table
Americans' identification as "pro-choice" or "pro-life" on abortion is provided here in tabular form, with breakouts by key population subgroups.
news.gallup.com
My fat fingers on a phone, for some reason half my ts are 5s. I don't get why check doesn't grab it.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
Probably about 43 percent of women would like to see it overturned.
'Pro-Choice' or 'Pro-Life' Demographic Table
Americans' identification as "pro-choice" or "pro-life" on abortion is provided here in tabular form, with breakouts by key population subgroups.
Only 471 women were even surveyed so not sure how accurate that info is.
But based on the info, younger people were more pro-choice compared to older. They didn't break that up by gender but that likely means women of child bearing age were more likely pro choice than pro life.
Also, the more educated the person, the more likely they were to be pro choice.
Still, sample size is a bit small but that was the trends
On this cheap phone any time a digit gets punched it's like the spell check just says Fvckit.
I'll have you know I paid a cool $100 for this little beauty. Cheapest one Consumer Cellular offered with our plan.
Allows you to post and order pizza. What more does a guy need
Criminal prosecution for the leaker should be off the table.
It's very much the same results I've seen in many different surveys. Pro-choice people routinely overestimate their supporters. Elitists would latch on to the more education aspect, of course.
Seven-in-ten say they do not want the Supreme Court to completely overturn its Roe v. Wade decision, compared with 28% who want to see the decision completely overturned.It's very much the same results I've seen in many different surveys. Pro-choice people routinely overestimate their supporters. Elitists would latch on to the more education aspect, of course.
Similar majorities of women (70%) and men (69%) do not want Roe v. Wade overturned.
Among all adults, those with higher levels of educational attainment are more supportive of legal abortion than those with less education. While 72% of those with postgraduate degrees say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, a smaller majority of those who have not completed college (57%) say the same.
Pew 2019
Which leaves 57% who do not…. That’s a pretty big gap, isn’t it?Probably about 43 percent of women would like to see it overturned.
'Pro-Choice' or 'Pro-Life' Demographic Table
Americans' identification as "pro-choice" or "pro-life" on abortion is provided here in tabular form, with breakouts by key population subgroups.
You always act as if women all agree with you. They don't. 43 percent is a very large percentage of any population.
