Archy1221 Posted January 20, 2023 Share Posted January 20, 2023 22 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said: You give a document to a trusted aide or a bats#!t spouse. You leak it to the media. Please tell me this isn't going to be another one of your utterly pointless semantics dodges. Ginni is on record saying her and Justice Thomas do not share details of cases. Choose to believe it or choose not to, that’s up to you. However, if she did indeed receive the document from someone (extremely unlikely), that someone would be the leaker and who law enforcement would have an issue with. That sir is not a matter of semantics but law. But I appreciate your completely wrong and pointless post. 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 20, 2023 Share Posted January 20, 2023 7 minutes ago, Archy1221 said: Ginni is on record saying her and Justice Thomas do not share details of cases. I don't believe anything Ginni says. She lives in an alternate reality. 3 Link to comment
Guy Chamberlin Posted January 20, 2023 Share Posted January 20, 2023 4 minutes ago, Archy1221 said: Ginni is on record saying her and Justice Thomas do not share details of cases. Choose to believe it or choose not to, that’s up to you. However, if she did indeed receive the document from someone (extremely unlikely), that someone would be the leaker and who law enforcement would have an issue with. That sir is not a matter of semantics but law. But I appreciate your completely wrong and pointless post. Do you think Supreme Court Justices do their own photocopying? Because the moment they hand that document to a clerk, they become a leaker --- by your definition. Listen, Ginni Thomas probably didn't leak this, but it's the most fun speculation that came to mind and oddly plausible. There was something in the report itself -- an odd bit of news announcing the leaker had not been found and the Court considered the investigation essentially over -- that left the impression that some people really didn't want to unravel the worst breach of privacy in SC history. Given that the report went out of its way to exonerate some of the liberal suspects that had been getting roasted on social media, you kinda envision the fingers turning to a conservative suspect and the Supreme Court suddenly deciding the 8 month investigation was complete, merely leaving us with a hopeless mystery. Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted January 20, 2023 Share Posted January 20, 2023 1 minute ago, Guy Chamberlin said: Do you think Supreme Court Justices do their own photocopying? No. Do you? 1 minute ago, Guy Chamberlin said: Because the moment they hand that document to a clerk, they become a leaker --- by your definition. Not true. As you well know, the clerk would regularly have access to those types of documents in the regular course of their day for reasons you just mentioned. The justice is not leaking the info for the press. Ginni would not fall under that category. Justice Thomas would not be having her make photocopies for work. Agree? If she had the document, it would most likely be for a more nefarious reason. Context would matter. 1 Link to comment
Guy Chamberlin Posted January 20, 2023 Share Posted January 20, 2023 Opinion If ‘Law & Order’ investigations went like the Supreme Court leak By Alexandra Petri Columnist|Following January 20, 2023 at 3:39 p.m. EST DUN-DUN! (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters, File Photo) Remember when a draft leaked of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, in what everyone observing the court considered an egregious violation of the sort not to be tolerated, and to the bottom of which they swore to get? Well, the Supreme Court has finished its investigation and found that the culprit was … unknowable! Better luck next time! They even had former homeland security secretary Michael Chertoff contemplate the investigation. He pronounced it “thorough,” and didn’t do any more investigation himself. Seems fine! Anyway, since most of what I know about the law is from “Law and Order,” here is an episode of its next wildly popular spinoff: “Law and Order: If They Investigated Things the Way the Supreme Court Seems to Have Investigated Its Leak Case.” [Two people are walking along the Supreme Court sidewalk having an unrelated conversation when … a crime happens! DUN-DUN! Cut to: An interrogation room.] Detective: Did you do it? Suspect: No. Detective: Keep in mind you have to sign a legal document that says you didn’t do it. Suspect: Cool. Detective: You can annotate it if you need to, though. Like, to pick a random example, if this were a leak investigation, and if you just remembered that you might have told your spouse, you could annotate your statement to say that. Suspect: Cool. Detective: Well, I guess that’s it. You can go. Other Detective, From Desk Over in the Corner: Wait! Detective: What is it? Other Detective: Have you checked their publicly available social media to see if they are connected to the scene of the crime? On LinkedIn, or Facebook? Detective: Yeah, we checked that. Other Detective: Oh. Well, that’s it. We’ve exhausted literally every possible technique at our disposal. Lawyer: Are you sure that you have? We need evidence! Couldn’t you try to … find evidence Detective: We did. We did a thorough investigation. That’s all we can do. We can look at ourselves in the mirror and say, “We did our best.” And, at the end of the day, isn’t that what counts? Lawyer: Not when you are investigating a crime. Look, we know the crime happened, so someone had to have done it! Detective: You ever hear of a victimless crime? This was its cousin, the perpetratorless crime. Lawyer: That’s not a thing. Detective: Sure it is. You ever try to follow up on an assault at a prep school party? A perpetratorless crime is a crime where the most likely suspect belongs to a country club. Lawyer: I don’t understand. Someone did it, and we just need to find that person. Detective: Maybe it was a person. Maybe it was a fog, or a ghost, or the emanations of the penumbras that come out of the Constitution and offer us guidance. Lawyer: I think it was a person. It wasn’t no one! Detective: No one has done a lot of crimes. He blinded the Cyclops. Lawyer: Look, I just think there’s more investigating you could do before you shrug and say, “Some things are just unknowable.” Detective (shrugging): Some things are just unknowable. Like, how is the Supreme Court going to rule on any given case? Lawyer: I agree that some things are unknowable, but I don’t think that’s one of them. Detective: Where do bees come from? Who makes Coca-Cola products, really? Where is James Madison now? Lawyer: Again, you are listing things that feel pretty knowable to me. Detective: Sure, poke and prod. Ask your questions. But, at the end of the day, where does that really get you? Lawyer: I think it gets me more information. Detective: That was a rhetorical question, one that is asked without expecting any answer. Lawyer: No, I have noticed you asking a lot of those. Plumber (entering): Hi, I heard you had a leak? I am here to locate the source of the leak and fix it. Detective: Impossible! Even for a computer! [The office begins steadily filling up with water as they speak.] Lawyer: I just, I just can’t help feeling you could have looked a little harder. Detective: Sorry, that’s literally impossible. If there is one thing I know about this crime, it’s like the U.S. Supreme Court: People don’t want any more information about it, and knowing more about it wouldn’t make them feel any better. Lawyer: [Unintelligible through large volumes of water.] Link to comment
commando Posted January 22, 2023 Share Posted January 22, 2023 WTF? sentenced to 10 years, suspended to 2 years, and released the day after sentencing 3 1 Link to comment
Guy Chamberlin Posted April 29, 2023 Share Posted April 29, 2023 It should never be a shock that rich people run the country by looking out for each other, but it still stings sometimes. Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted May 2, 2023 Share Posted May 2, 2023 Ted’s not wrong. Would love to hear from others here on the SCOTUS trips mentioned. 3 1 Link to comment
RedDenver Posted May 2, 2023 Author Share Posted May 2, 2023 1 hour ago, Archy1221 said: Ted’s not wrong. Would love to hear from others here on the SCOTUS trips mentioned. Cruz is trying the age old strategy of deflecting. As for myself, investigate all the justices and air their dirty laundry. 1 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted May 2, 2023 Share Posted May 2, 2023 1 hour ago, RedDenver said: Cruz is trying the age old strategy of deflecting. As for myself, investigate all the justices and air their dirty laundry. If by deflecting you point out hypocrisy then I agree. And he is saying none of the justices are compromised. Which I tend to agree 4 1 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted May 4, 2023 Share Posted May 4, 2023 Welp, guess we won’t have any SCOTUS justices soon. 1 Link to comment
Lorewarn Posted May 4, 2023 Share Posted May 4, 2023 Investigate, clean, purge and reform the SC to the furthest ends possible with no regard for political ideology. Link to comment
Recommended Posts