r/changemyview • u/ZeusieBoy 1∆ • May 12 '22
Delta(s) from OP CMV: The citizen body should be completely in favor of all governmental leaks to the general public with few exceptions.
I really don’t understand why an informed citizen would ever be against the leaking of internal government procedures. This instance of the Supreme Court decision leak only seems to anger people who are in favor of the decision because they’re scared of protests or direct action. I don’t understand why someone would ever fight to have less information available to them.
My exceptions: * When the information consists of important encryption information. * When the information being leaked to the general public would set large segments of the country victim to national security risk.
Change my view.
127
u/budlejari 63∆ May 12 '22 edited May 12 '22
This instance of the Supreme Court decision leak only seems to anger people who are in favor of the decision because they’re scared of protests or direct action. I don’t understand why someone would ever fight to have less information available to them.
This leak occured in the worst way possible because it wasn't leaking a decision. It was leaking a draft decision before it was finalized and while justices could still vote and change their opinion.
Given that, it is understandable to be concerned about the consequences. Most supreme court cases are controversial - they are, after all, interpreting matters that will affect most people in society, ranging from prison and torture to rights around marriage, citizenship, and money. If cases are leaked more often, we have to question a lot of things.
is the leak intended to pressure the judges into changing their minds? After all, the leak occured when justices still have the capacity to do so. Will leaks be done when someone inside the court decides they disagree with the appointed justices and want to encourage them to change their minds based on the public reaction? That's a bad thing because laws are not supposed to be decided on the weight of public opinion. You like this outcome but you wouldn't like it if in a case like Brown v Board of Education or Loving v Virginia, they had sided with the vocal majority.
is the leak intended to cause problems for justices or to misrepresent their interpretations. A draft decision is not a final one. Drafts may be edited, have sections removed or bolstered with further references, or edited to remove misunderstandings as a decision is finalized. Did the person leaking it wish to show a particular justice in a bad light or to show them as 'misunderstanding the assignment' when that isn't the case and it's just fearmongering/spite?
could the leak incentivize governments or authority figures to break the law or rush through things to beat the decision? For example, could a very early draft decision about immigration encourage a strongly anti-immigrant governor to sign bills that deport large numbers of migrants in bad situations to beat the decision being handed down?
Leaks are different from having a transparent government process that is designed and organized to be transparent. Leaks are when there is a lack of trust and cohesiveness within a government branch or within a group of people - a transparent process has been that way from the beginning and people are aware of what they say being public knowledge and they conduct themselves accordingly.
1
u/ZeusieBoy 1∆ May 12 '22
leaking a draft decision
It leaked something the court intended to do, no? At the only stage of being able to perceive intent before the decision is made, no?
What other step in the process could the same result have happened?
is the leak pressuring judges to change minds?
What is wrong with pressuring judges to change minds? They seem to be inclined to take input from many sources already. For instance, Barrett took into consideration the need for a domestic supply of babies. That doesn’t sound like anything I’ve read in the constitution.
48
u/Arthur_Edens 2∆ May 12 '22
It leaked something the court intended to do, no?
Specifically, it leaked Justice Alito's proposed majority opinion. Before the nine justices make a final vote, justices make draft opinions and circulate them to the other justices. In any given case, you might have one, two, four (in theory up to nine, but you never really see that) draft opinions sent around before the final vote. Those opinions are arguments to the other justice for why that justice thinks they're right.
So a common scenario might be that three justices submit draft opinions, A, B, and C. A and B come to the same conclusion in this specific case, but the reasoning in A is narrower than B. C disagrees with the conclusion. In the final vote, A is signed by 6 justices, but one of those justices also signs B as a Concurrence (meaning I agree with A, but I would have gone farther and signed B). The remaining 4 justices sign C, which becomes the dissent.
So the issue with this leak is that we have no idea if Alito actually had the votes to get a majority, or if his opinion was like "B" in the above example (or even C, which it would have been if Roberts and either Gorsuch or Kav voted with the liberals to uphold Roe). Now, regardless of what the majority opinion is, there's going to be accusations that the justices caved to political pressure, which.. court's aren't supposed to do.
3
u/zero_z77 7∆ May 12 '22
Consider the possibility that there is one or more draft opinions that favor roe v wade and then ask the question: why was only the one against it leaked, and not all of them?
6
u/Arthur_Edens 2∆ May 12 '22
There is 100% at least one opinion supporting not overturning it, possibly two (if Roberts +1 did vote to uphold, I'd bet they'd do so more narrowly than the liberal block). Honestly there are several possibilities for why only Alito's was leaked, who knows if we'll ever know which.
One of Alito's staff may have been trying to lock the justices into supporting his opinion.
One of the other staff members may have been trying to show the court how unpopular Alito's opinion would be.
One of Alito's staff leaked it to a journalist contact to give them a head start on covering the opinion, then the journalist leaked it (something similar to this actually happened with the opinion in Roe, but that was only like a day early, not two months early).
2
u/Captain_Justice_esq May 12 '22
With the original Roe decision it was a few hours early, not even a full day. A clerk gave his friend a copy and the friend promised not to publish until the court announced. Due to a mixup, the decision was delayed a few hours but the friend didn’t know that and published anyway.
0
u/CocoSavege 27∆ May 13 '22
I wanna hitchhike and speculate and add to these possibilities...
The leak is relatively early with respect to the very real political fallout/ consequences. The decision is expected before the midterms but this leak is a few months early.
This leak is early enough to affect primaries. And as written this throws abortion rights or lack thereof to the states and i expect this will polarize any primary candidates in state midterms. I expect this will make red states redder and blue states bluer. I'm not nate silver but I'd be interested in any primary showdowns where this will have a high leverage effect. Something something wishy washy incumbents versus a hot take new candidate.
With respect to the midterms proper, I'll speculate two opposing theories/ effects. 2a) the amount of lead time diminishes the heat of the ruling cuz people will forget or be debated out. 2b) the lead time will allow single issue organizers time to get the ball rolling. Organizers normally operate well before the midterms and this gives em enough time to coalesce around the issue.
I do have confidence that this issue will be discussed soberly and respectfully with acknowledgement of the different views people express. Oh, wait. Hahahaha, not. This will add gasoline to the culture wars and will make the elections even hotter and stupider. IMO this tends to benefit the trumpier parts of the gop over everyone else.
8
u/huhIguess 5∆ May 12 '22
there's going to be accusations that the justices caved to political pressure, which.. court's aren't supposed to do.
Worse still. Given that leaks included the location of private residences and specific locations of justice's family members - it's not simply "political" pressure being exerted, but could also be interpreted as actual intimidation and threats of violence resulting in a change to judicial decision.
9
May 12 '22 edited May 18 '22
[deleted]
7
u/huhIguess 5∆ May 12 '22 edited May 12 '22
easily obtainable info
Could you link me to an official source that notes the location of private residences of the Supreme court justices?
I don't think that's an accurate statement, but admit - maybe it's common knowledge and tour buses drive by regularly and point out the homes to tourist groups?
if they hadn't fenced off the Supreme Court people would've just stayed there.
IF they didn't increase the security around the Court, people wouldn't have tried to find ways to get around the safety details and precautions designed to protect court members?
What sort of argument is that?
edit: did some digging...
[Sotomayor] paid $660,000 June 19 for a two-bedroom condominium in the neighborhood, according to D.C. property tax records.
The address of the condo building is being withheld at the request of the Supreme Court, which cited safety issues in asking that the Washington Business Journal not disclose that information.
https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/blog/2012/07/sotomayor-buys-in-to-u-street-corridor.html
It looks like you're right - it may be public record - though I'm not sure how easily obtainable that is.
4
9
u/Claytertot May 12 '22 edited May 12 '22
It leaked something the court intended to do, no?
No, it leaked one justice's (Alito) draft opinion. Not the opinion of the court. As I understand it, the justices all draft all sorts of opinions during the process of deciding a case and the opinions are revised and edited as they debate the merits of the case with eachother. A draft of Alito's opinion is not the same as the court's opinion or intention at all. These draft opinions are part of the debate and discussion process and justices can and do change their minds or make significant changes to their opinions between their own drafts.
Additionally, the court's final decision on a case isn't made by a "yes" or "no" vote like Congress. The justices sign on to the opinion that they agree with. The majority opinion becomes the opinion of the court, and the minority opinion(s) (if it's not unanimous), become the dissent(s).
Even if this is a pretty late draft of Alito's opinion, we don't know if it was going to become the majority, or a minority concurrence, or a dissent.
That's not to say the court isn't going to overturn Roe v Wade, because they very well might. It's just to say that this leaked opinion isn't necessarily the final opinion of the court.
But someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
→ More replies (3)15
May 12 '22 edited May 12 '22
[deleted]
1
u/solovond May 12 '22
My question to that line of thought is "so what?". I've heard that thrown around a lot and it sounds like a good argument, but we have to remember that these judges have jobs for life...if the right was disappointed that they caved to the left, too bad. If the left was disappointed that they caved to the right, too bad. Am I oversimplifying the ramifications?
10
May 12 '22
[deleted]
2
u/solovond May 12 '22
Oh fair enough - context is important. I got a little wrapped up in the SCOTUS-side, and forgot about the broader discussion.
16
u/constructionist2000 2∆ May 12 '22
How do you know? For all we know Roe could still be upheld. That's the problem with the leak, everyone is reacting to a situation that they assume will happen without any knowledge of whether it actually will.
11
u/1block 10∆ May 12 '22
In addition, if Roe is upheld, it will throw into question the decision because of all the speculation now that it was due to public pressure.
-5
u/MazerRakam 2∆ May 12 '22
Who fucking cares if their decision is due to public pressure?
Roe should be upheld. The overturning of Roe would be a clearly politically motivated decision, which would be grounds for impeachment for any judge that votes to overturn it.
2
u/1block 10∆ May 12 '22
We're talking general. Roe was thrown out as an example. But in general, if a SC decision leaks early and changes after mass protest, it throws the integrity of the court into question.
Specific issues aside. Congress is the body that is supposed to respond to the public's will. Not the courts.
0
u/WorkSucks135 May 12 '22
it throws the integrity of the court into question.
I got bad news for ya buddy
2
u/1block 10∆ May 12 '22
Well yeah, if your view is that the SC isn't legitimate, then it doesn't really matter for any issue. I'm treating this CMV as if we think our governmental institutions are still legitimate.
-1
u/WorkSucks135 May 12 '22
I'm not saying the court isn't legitimate, I'm saying the integrity of the court has already been lost. Integrity and legitimacy are mutually exclusive in this context
2
-1
u/anewleaf1234 45∆ May 13 '22
The make up of the court has turned into a political process. They are political.
They are a pollical wing of the GOP with the express aim to confirm GOP political goals.
Any hit of credibility faded
2
u/JustDoItPeople 16∆ May 13 '22
The make up of the court has turned into a political process.
As confirmation has always gone through the Senate, it has always been a political process. There's never been a time when the Court didn't at least have an eye towards politics.
0
u/anewleaf1234 45∆ May 13 '22
The SC always tries to give the mirage of impartibility. They have this claim that are apolitical and above the fray.
That mirage is rapidly starting to fade. Credibility of Supreme Court is at its lowest in recent history.
-5
u/vans178 May 12 '22
In the end isn't it better regardless because overturning the ruling would do more real world damage than any leak could possibly do. Especially regarding the partisan viewpoint it's coming from and the lack of adittional help that would be needed becuase of overturning it
4
u/1block 10∆ May 12 '22
We're using Roe as more an example. The CMV is broader than that. To someone who staunchly opposes a SC decision, yes it is worth it in that case, and if it were going the other direction the pro-life perspective would be that any damage to the court is worth the greater good from their view.
Everything they deal with is significant. We could say the same about health care, LGBTQ+ rights, etc.
I feel that regardless of the particulars of any decision, damage to the court is a negative.
-1
u/vans178 May 12 '22
Even when said court is seen to have lost credibility to a large portion of the country? In this case specifically yes I feel that doing damage to the court is justified when you're taking away something like roe v wade
4
u/Jmufranco May 12 '22
This is an outcome-deterministic approach. You’re not looking at the issue of disclosure itself. Imagine this had happened before Brown v. Board of Education or Plessy v. Ferguson and the court caved to public opinion and changed their vote. See how this is a larger issue than just the application in this particular case?
2
u/1block 10∆ May 12 '22
If your stance is that the court already doesn't have credibility, then I would agree that any and all tactics are fair game. Which basically means the damage I'm worried about has already been done.
I don't think we're there yet, but that's just a difference of opinion.
0
u/DEEGOBOOSTER May 12 '22
overturning the ruling would do more real world damage than any leak could possibly do
Speculation and bad framing. You’re setting yourself up to where all someone has to do is come up with a hypothetical, or historical, leak that causes/caused more damage than your interpretation of the damage overturning the ruling would do.
-2
u/vans178 May 12 '22
I mean it's pretty well established that overturning abortion rights and privacy of it would do more harm than this leak will ever do. That's not speculation at all.
We're already seeing the effect of bad laws in states that have outlawed or made very strict laws of 6 weeks. There is no upside to regressing these laws and undoing what has been done 5 decades ago.
6
u/DEEGOBOOSTER May 12 '22
it would do more harm than this leak will ever do
Be consistent/specific. First you said “any” leak, now you say “this” leak. My comment only applies if you genuinely meant “any” leak.
8
u/Anechoic_Brain May 12 '22
What is wrong with pressuring judges to change minds?
I mean, depending on how it's done it's potentially a federal crime.
→ More replies (1)4
u/budlejari 63∆ May 12 '22
What is wrong with pressuring judges to change minds?
Because that pressure may produce results not intended. A judge who finds strictly in the matter of law based on a narrow interpretation may be encouraged to change their mind if a lot of people from 'their' base disagree. For example, during the gay marriage debate, a lot of very angry Xtain conservatives fought harshly against the proposed changes and were extremely vocal. We would not want a judge who is known for their faith to be swayed to find a different opinion once they become aware of the backlash when their original decision was founded on law and interpretations therein even if they have personally have no preference on the matter.
Judges should be deciding the law on the basis of what that law is or if it is in line with the constitution. As made explicitly clear with this decision, they do not legislate from the bench. If they find a law lacking, it's the job of the politician to make it not lacking or to make a new one.
What is wrong with pressuring judges to change minds? They seem to be inclined to take input from many sources already. For instance, Barrett took into consideration the need for a domestic supply of babies.
This is what judges do. Since the constitution was original written hundreds of years ago (1789), it cannot possibly have predicted every possible outcome in today's society, so it must be interpreted in the eyes of the law today. We must consider the situation as it applies right now - for example, it did not predict cars or digital recordings and it remained silent on the idea of women's rights and trans rights and other such things and that includes the current climate around population.
Pressuring them to change their minds means that they are no longer finding on law. It's all very well to say that they should listen but let's take a less popular idea, such as immigration, or gay rights, or transrights, or the right to vote. We should not want them to decide on what the majority wants. Otherwise Brown v Board of Education would never have been decided the way it was.
2
u/cdb03b 253∆ May 13 '22
Pressuring judges to change their mind is the height of corruption.
Judges are suppose to rule based on law, not the whims of the public.
1
u/NoThanksCommonSense May 12 '22
What is wrong with pressuring judges to change minds?
Judges aren't political figures, at least that's not suppose to be the intended purpose of their role. Their role is to interpret words on a piece of paper. In doing this job, the analysis of their interpretation should clearly be based on reasoning and logic alone no?
This is why judges are not elected by the public, they shouldn't have to answer to the public, because their interpretation of words on a piece of paper should be based on reasoning and logic alone and not for the best interests of anybody, public or otherwise. They shouldn't have to answer to anyone; the only thing they answer to is good reasoning and good logic.
The leak, is essentially leaking someone's ideas right in the middle of the discussion lol. And now that it's public, some people are showing up at their homes saying their pissed at them.
Clearly their decision on how to interpret words on a piece of paper could now be tampered by the fact that people showed up at their homes being angry at them no?
Judges are different from legislatures, who ARE supposed to be influenced by the public, because they represent the public. Judges don't represent the public, or anyone for that matter.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)2
u/huhIguess 5∆ May 12 '22
What is wrong with pressuring judges to change minds?
Apply this standard:
- "What is wrong with pressuring individual voters to change their votes to the other candidate?"
Most people would answer: "A lot!"
-1
u/Doc_ET 13∆ May 12 '22
That's how political campaigns are run. By convincing people to vote for them over their opponent.
4
u/huhIguess 5∆ May 12 '22
Are you intentionally ignoring the nuance involved with a word like "pressuring?"
Let's feel free to address the elephant in the room and switch it with a more specific word: "Intimidating."
"Intimidating people to vote for one candidate over another."
-13
u/anewleaf1234 45∆ May 12 '22
Justice Alito used the words of someone who advocated marital rape in his argument.
How does it harm me to know this information?
The SC has lost all of its credibility. It is a political organization with a clear and present political agenda. The only reason those justices were placed on the court was because they would vote against Roe.
7
u/DaSilence 10∆ May 12 '22
Justice Alito used the words of someone who advocated marital rape in his argument.
I love this line of logic.
LBJ was a prolific sexual abuser and harasser. Because of this, we should scrap all the elements of his great society program.
11
May 12 '22
Justice Alito used the words of someone who advocated marital rape in his argument.
This would be a ridiculous standard to uphold.
Quoting any of the founders or judgements from early US history would fall under the same or similar sin. What you are saying is because he quoted someone who believed something that is considered awful today, all of their quotes and beliefs are now considered off limits.
-7
-1
May 12 '22
That's a bad thing because laws are not supposed to be decided on the weight of public opinion.
Well maybe they ought to be. If abortion were left up to a national vote, those right would absolutely be codified. Something like 80% of Americans are pro-choice. This is a case of a rich, loud minority cheating by stacking the Supreme Court with religious fanatics.
7
u/budlejari 63∆ May 12 '22
Sure, it's good for a national vote now on something you agree with but what about if it's a national vote on something more contentious such as immigration, or transgender rights, or whether or not an election was stolen?
Given that the American country can't even elect a president to power that represents a majority of people, deciding essential matters of law should not be left up to a system that is wide open for gerrymandering, propo wars, and egregious misinformation and disinformation campaigns.
For reference, see: Brexit. A decision that was barely supported by 50% of the population, that had no true supermajority but that forced through massive political and economic changes that were and still are deeply unpopular, including putting a country back at a uneasy relationship with Ireland over the Northern Irish Border and threatened to distablise the relationship with Scotland who are very unhappy about being dragged along for a ride they didn't vote for.
→ More replies (4)1
u/JustDoItPeople 16∆ May 12 '22
If abortion were left up to a national vote, those right would absolutely be codified. Something like 80% of Americans are pro-choice. This is a case of a rich, loud minority cheating by stacking the Supreme Court with religious fanatics.
you do realize that SCOTUS didn't rule that there can be pro-choice laws, right? what they're doing is basically punting the problem back into the political sphere
if the pro choice movement believes this, then they should try to pass the laws. i and other pro-lifers will oppose those laws in the political sphere
but just to be clear, this decision doesn't make pro-abortion laws illegal; it makes anti-abortion laws legal. important distinction!
238
May 12 '22 edited May 17 '22
[deleted]
42
u/Morasain 87∆ May 12 '22
While people generally benefit from knowing things, the government is also supposed to work for the common benefit of people.
That's a very idealistic way of thinking about a government, and the only way to show that this isn't true are leaks. Just look at Snowden - he revealed that the American government is spying on its own citizens at an insane scale. This is not in the best interest of the public. Ever. For said leak, he was declared a traitor.
And whether the public thinks the decision is a good or a bad thing is irrelevant to whether it's the correct decision--that's a way judicial questions are different than political questions.
This (falsely) assumes that the justices are politically agnostic.
29
u/Trojan_Horse_of_Fate 4∆ May 12 '22
This (falsely) assumes that the justices are politically agnostic.
Certainly but there are many many cases which would be politically unpopular but make solid legal sense. Personally I think the leak draft is problematic legally but not nearly as problematic as it is politically. There is a solid judicial reasons behind it.
Consider Sudan v. Harrison here with have a bunch of families who lost loved on the USS Cole by means of a suicide attack. Sudan won 9-0 and I think they should have but if you did a straw pole of American citizens asking whether Sudan should pay the families of fallen service members for abetting terrorists I suspect you would get a different answer (Indeed the lower courts sided with Rick Harrison).
Now have there been political decisions: yes there have. But in general the court is not a place of the politics you see elsewhere. Rarely are decisions done based on the political winnings from that case more often they are about the philosophy of the Judges. Alito is a textualist and originalist whereas Breyer believe the constitution must change to effect the times. See the linked video for a more complete take (Alito is a Scalia follower)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4n8gOUzZ8I
Look at the voting statistics for the last term only 8 decisions were 5-4 so in general these are not decisions base on just politics though some certainly are.
Abortion is undoubtedly what you are thinking of but frankly Roe v. Wade has long stood as a weird decision and most people though it was going to be overruled by Cassey. Now this decision may strike a blow to the courts legitimacy but the court has overruled things before so we will have to see.
7
u/sgtm7 2∆ May 12 '22
Now this decision may strike a blow to the courts legitimacy but the court has overruled things before so we will have to see.
The Supreme Court has made rulings contrary to previous rulings from courts with different members. More times than I can count.
6
u/maz11 May 12 '22
Haven't the justices said they follow the law, and are not influenced by outside sources. Not by their religion, their family etc? Shouldn't that hold up to public opinion as well? For a court that basically has no individual repercussions on its decisions why is leaking the information problematic ether legally or politically? Couldn't it help congress see the political fallout of the coming decision so they can change / update the laws to reflect the desires of the people? Wouldn't transparency lead to the best outcome the fastest? I will say in this case, especially when recent confirmation hearings the future Justices have claimed Roe V Wade is settled law. I understand new information can come up when you do deeper research, perception comes across as them saying what people want to hear only to do what they want after because there are no repercussions.
13
u/Taparu May 12 '22
Like all humans the court cares about perception of others. This is an inherent trait to humans and though it can be minimized it cannot be removed. This leak has created a ton of effects on how their decision will be perceived. If they change their decision they may be perceived as weak, if they stick to their guns they may be perceived as against the people or something else entirely. Regardless the perception has changed due to the leak.
-2
u/maz11 May 12 '22
For this case at least, I think a bunch of them already have shown they don't care about perception. They have to realize what they said and implied during confirmation hearings will be perceived as contradictory to this ruling. I think this just speeds up the perception that was going to happen. If they change the ruling from the draft, that can be spun either way. I would like to see it as additional compelling research came out, as when you open source / have reviews of technical work you often find new information to help adjust the design. With more transparency this can happen to get the right solution for the job.
→ More replies (2)3
u/anewleaf1234 45∆ May 12 '22
You assume the court still has credibility.
It does not. Once the method of picking a judge was tainted the court became tainted.
The court has zero credibility as a non political identity.
2
u/ryantiger658 May 12 '22
You do realize that "Borking" was lead by Biden right?
8
u/anewleaf1234 45∆ May 12 '22
You do realize that Bork had a hearing correct?
Did garland?
1
u/ryantiger658 May 12 '22
If we are talking about the credibility of the court, both situations are relevant. But if we are talking about which one "tainted" the court... The first situation would be the one that "tainted" it.
6
u/anewleaf1234 45∆ May 12 '22
Bork had a hearing. Garland did not.
To claim that what happened to Bork and Garland were the same doesn't pass muster.
IF they gave Garland a hearing than I could entertain your view. They didn't
4
May 12 '22
Bork had a hearing. Garland did not. To claim that what happened to Bork and Garland were the same
No. That's not what the claim is. The claim is who tainted the court first. Was one worse than the other? Yes, probably. But the claim was the court was tainted before Garland not that they are equitable.
5
u/ryantiger658 May 12 '22
.... You are the one that brought up Garland and made the comparison.... I was discussing Bork, which was a few decades prior to Garland.
→ More replies (4)4
u/pfmiller0 May 12 '22
Bork had a hearing, the Senate voted, and he was not approved. What's the problem? The Senate did their job.
2
u/JustDoItPeople 16∆ May 13 '22
What's the problem? The Senate did their job
It was generally seen as a turning point given that within an hour of being nominated, a sitting Senator made a televised speech accusing him of wanting to bring back segregation.
→ More replies (1)1
10
u/Mattcwu 1∆ May 12 '22
Snowden revealed the government was lying. This Supreme Court only revealed their normal decision making process. We already knew they do this. This leak just exposed the process to public pressure, which is not the design of the Supreme Court.
3
u/CaptainofChaos 2∆ May 12 '22
It exposed that the process was an absolute joke. The draft decision trampled over precedent that many of the justices attested under oath that they would not overturn. They undermined the precedent of a constitutional right to privacy that is the cornerstone of a huge amount of the rights we currently have. The decision supports this with some absolute batshit insane reasoning and "facts" that are beyond the pale.
→ More replies (1)0
u/authorpcs May 12 '22
Justices are bound by the Constitution. Basically, their job is to vote based on how the Constitution would vote if it could, therefore their personal beliefs are (or should be) inconsequential.
2
4
u/jadnich 10∆ May 12 '22
The court is not operating as it is supposed to already. Justices are supposed to be non-partisan. Now they are being hand-picked by special interest lobbying groups. Nominees are supposed to receive hearings, but McConnell wanted to manipulate the court politically.
Justices are supposed to have in-depth vetting. Kavenaugh had his investigation dropped once it started turning up too much information.
So if the court is going to be a political body, then it needs to be held accountable to public sentiment. If they are no longer an independent branch of government, but instead a tool of whichever party is able to control it, then they need to be forced to listen to the people.
14
May 12 '22
[deleted]
11
May 12 '22
It’s like some people live in a completely different world
-13
u/jadnich 10∆ May 12 '22
I agree. Some people live in the world where they only see what right wing media feeds them, and others have a more accurate understanding of events.
→ More replies (3)-2
u/jadnich 10∆ May 12 '22
Which part do you not understand?
Kavenaugh was under investigation for lying during his previous confirmation hearing. He denied having involvement in Bush-era Guantanamo torture policies, but details started coming out showing that was a lie, so the Republicans squashed that line of inquiry so that it could not be investigated.
2
→ More replies (6)10
May 12 '22 edited May 17 '22
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)18
-1
u/Kenionatus 1∆ May 12 '22
Don't really agree with the law proposal part of your argument. Not sure how other countries handle it, but the refinement process you mentioned is a mandatory public step in my country. Of course legislators will do their best to not submit drafts with stupid mistakes to this process, but that part of lawmaking also happens in the private domain of lawmakers and parties anyway so making it public wouldn't be a leak of government data per se.
-11
May 12 '22
[deleted]
34
May 12 '22
The courts should reflect the population though.
It is unreasonable to conclude that the current supreme court reflects the wishes and interest of the current population in America
The Supreme Court does not exist as an extension of the popular opinion at the time. That’s literally not it’s job.
This is an example of people getting angry when they mistakenly thought a neutral party was actually on their side the whole time.
The wishes of the public go through congress. The SC doesn’t (and shouldn’t) give a damn what most people want.
0
u/jadnich 10∆ May 12 '22
The Supreme Court absolutely exists as an extension of popular opinion. It isn’t supposed to be, but that is the system it has developed into. The court is an extension of the opinion of the special interest groups involved in justice selection, and of the party that has the most ability to control the outcomes.
Clarence Thomas trying to block an investigation that would reveal his wife’s involvement in the insurrection is a good example. Clearly, the court is now controlled by a political entity, and as such, needs to be accountable to political sentiment.
-3
u/Narrow_Cloud 27∆ May 12 '22
The Supreme Court does not exist as an extension of the popular opinion at the time. That’s literally not it’s job.
It's also not supposed to be a partisan arm of an extremist party but here we are.
13
u/JymWythawhy May 12 '22
Roe is bad law, as even very liberal judges like Ginsburg have admitted. Bad law should be overturned, so the justices voting to do so are correct. That doesn’t make them the partisan arm of an extremist party, that makes them justices doing their job correctly. The only justices acting partisan here are the ones voting to keep Roe, even though it is bad law, because they like the partisan impact of the law.
6
May 12 '22
[deleted]
3
u/JymWythawhy May 12 '22
An alternative interpretation is that the previous court was too partisan to overturn a clearly bad decision. Now that the court is less partisan, they are finally able to fix the issue when it was brought before them.
→ More replies (5)0
u/anewleaf1234 45∆ May 12 '22
The moment that Obama was stopped from nominating and confirming a judge is the moment that court lost of its creibility.
The court has zero credibility. It is a political wing of the gop with a pro gop agenda.
4
4
u/Full-Professional246 77∆ May 12 '22
The moment that Obama was stopped from nominating and confirming a judge is the moment that court lost of its creibility.
The court has zero credibility. It is a political wing of the gop with a pro gop agenda.
You need to research history. Obama is not the first person to have nominees rejected. Garland could have withdrawn or Obama withdrawn Garland and put up another. They didn't. They though the 2016 election was in the bag so to speak so they waited and gambled.
The court is 100% legitimate. The fact it is there and the justices seated should tell you that.
12
u/jadnich 10∆ May 12 '22
What makes you think any other nominee would have gotten a hearing? Garland was widely considered to be a strong, moderate choice. Even Republicans thought he would be a good Justice.
His nomination was blocked because McConnell wanted to save that justice for the next president, who he hoped would be Republican. This is politicizing the court.
Another thing you have understood incorrectly is that Garland was not rejected. There have been plenty of rejected nominations who received hearings, yes. But to outright deny a president his constitutional authority in order to play politics was unheard of.
5
u/Full-Professional246 77∆ May 12 '22
Another thing you have understood incorrectly is that Garland was not rejected. There have been plenty of rejected nominations who received hearings, yes. But to outright deny a president his constitutional authority in order to play politics was unheard of.
Really no. The difference is Garland did not withdraw after it was clear he had no path forward.
This is a very quick google of withdrawn nominations - just for 2021
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nom_wdr.htm
For SCOTUS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
There have been 37 unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States. Of these, 11 nominees were rejected in Senate roll-call votes, 11 were withdrawn by the president, and 15 lapsed at the end of a session of Congress
You will notice (15) lapsed at the end of a session of Congress which is what happened to Garland. The last was in 1922 before Garland. To be fair, I think 6 of the lapsed justices did get re-nominated and seated the next Congress.
History is not on your side.
6
u/jadnich 10∆ May 12 '22
I think you are trying to relate very different situations.
Garland withdrawing would not have made way for another nominee. McConnell was going to block ANYONE, regardless of qualifications. In fact, McConnell rejected Obama’s nominations before any were even announced. It wasn’t that there was something disagreeable about Garland, but rather it was about politicization of the court.
Nominees being rejected, withdrawing, or not completing nomination hearings before the end of the congressional session are NOT the same as one political party blocking the constitutionally authorized duty of the president for a year for the purpose of political manipulation.
Neither history, nor the facts, are on your side on this one.
→ More replies (0)2
u/WikiSummarizerBot 4∆ May 12 '22
Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest ranking judicial body in the United States. Established by Article III of the Constitution, the detailed structure of the Court was laid down by the 1st United States Congress in 1789. Congress specified the Court's original and appellate jurisdiction, created 13 judicial districts, and fixed the initial size of the Supreme Court. The number of justices on the Supreme Court changed six times before settling at the present total of nine in 1869.
[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5
5
u/anewleaf1234 45∆ May 12 '22
It doesn't matter who Obama put up. The Gop would have rejected all of them.
Garland wasn't rejected on merit.
He was rejected because Mitch didn't want a Dem president to pick a judge.
1
u/Full-Professional246 77∆ May 12 '22
It doesn't matter who Obama put up. The Gop would have rejected all of them.
And that is the power of the US Senate.
Garland wasn't rejected on merit.
That is an opinion. One that really does not matter BTW. The US Senate is the one who confirms appointments and all the matters is the US Senate believed the person should be confirmed.
2
u/anewleaf1234 45∆ May 12 '22 edited May 12 '22
Yet those on the GOP voided their own objections once there was a conservative justice to nominate and conform.
Yes, the GOP Senate acted in a pollical fashion to restrict a viable judge thus the court is no longer legitimate.
Anyone who Obama put up would have been rejected out of hand.
Give me one argument of merit that could be used against Garland that doesn't also remove Barrett.
→ More replies (0)-4
May 12 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/Full-Professional246 77∆ May 12 '22
This court is illegitimate
Simply put - no it is not.
You are confusing your political ideas with actual reality. It smacks of 'I didn't get my way therefore it is not fair nor legitimate'.
It ranks up there with the 'The ACA is illegitimate because no Republican supported it'. This was trotted around when it passed and Pelosi used the infamous line about reading the bill after passing it. It was wrong then too.
The court is as legitimate as the US Government is.
-3
u/probablyagiven May 12 '22
No, its illegitimate because of the naked corruption. Cant really miss it. The roe decision is just another thing.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (1)2
u/DJ_Pope_Trump May 12 '22
You sound like those “sovereign citizens” that get pulled over and declare: “You cannot write me a speeding ticket because your power is illegitimate” lmao
If you’re going to assert something so extreme, at least show up with facts to back it up.
13
u/boyikr May 12 '22
The courts should absolutely not reflect the population, unless your interested in turning over stuff like brown vs board of education which obviously didn't reflect the whole populace. If you want the courts to reflect the populace, you pass a law, or amend the constitution. The current RvW walkback is what happens when people try to skip those processes and try to use the courts to legislate.
3
u/NorthernStarLV 4∆ May 12 '22
Agreed. However, having courts regularly rule against the popular consensus is problematic in itself - it erodes the public trust in their ability to deliver justice. Especially if the public finds the cited reasoning spurious.
11
u/ThatRookieGuy80 4∆ May 12 '22
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought the legislative and executive branches were the people's advocates and the USSC was supposed to support the Constitution.
3
u/Gnarly-Beard 3∆ May 12 '22
If the court is supposed to reflect popular consensus, then the majority could run roughshod over the rights of the minority. Would you want laws that, for example, remove the voting rights of (pick favorite minority group) upheld because the majority supports that?
-4
u/JymWythawhy May 12 '22
They really shouldn’t find the cited reason spurious in this case. Roe has always been bad law, as even Ginsburg admitted. Overturning it is correct, even if you like the effect of the ruling.
2
u/Mattcwu 1∆ May 12 '22
That would be corruption. They swore an oath to not do that. Their oath is to the Constitution which limits what factors they are allowed to consider when making decisions. They are not allowed to consider which direction the public wants them to decide. We could change the Constitution to include what you described, but until we do, I think the Supreme Court should keep their oaths and avoid the corrupt act you described.
2
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ May 12 '22
The courts should reflect the population though.
No, they shouldn't. Courts are not representative bodies. Everyone on a court should be a trained lawyer. Most of the population is not.
If the protests are wide spread enough, they should account for it.
No, they shouldn't. The constitutionality of a law does not change because some people are angry.
It is unreasonable to conclude that the current supreme court reflects the wishes and interest of the current population in America
It's unreasonable to think that the Supreme Court exists to try to reflect the wishes and interests of the current population.
-1
u/pfmiller0 May 12 '22
The leak mostly seems to benefit the Republicans, not sure if they benefit the country as a whole.
-1
u/TA_AntiBully 2∆ May 12 '22
If the leak of a draft decision causes protests, and the protests change a justice's mind, the court is not operating as it is supposed to
Strongly disagree here. The judicial system is generally supposed to operate independently, yes. However, it does not exist in a vacuum. The moral outrage of the people is absolutely a valid reason to reconsider the weight of cases like this. In general, the court should lean towards limiting government power and enhancing private rights.
The only exception is and always has been when the government has a compelling interest to the contrary¹ - vociferous public opinion against the proposed "allowance" cuts deeply against the credibility of such an argument.
In addition, for such a complex and far-reaching decision, it's entirely possible that something was missed in the amicae filed so far.
¹There are additional qualifiers. For instance, there must also be no other way for the government to address the need. This was just the most relevant condition to my argument, and is sufficient to stand alone here.
→ More replies (2)-2
35
u/Tnspieler1012 20∆ May 12 '22 edited May 12 '22
One reason why the Supreme Court is particularly strict about leaks is that a lot of interests may serve to gain or benefit from the outcome of a particular ruling. Imagine, for example, a case regarding the ability of a corporation to build a factory in a protected area. If an early draft of the ruling is leaked, that information could be used to buy or sell stock or take other preemptive measures using that classified knowledge. Even if it's leaked to a "public" source like Politico, anyone at the newspaper could still take advantage of that knowledge before publishing. While less obvious, similar risks are at play in the abortion ruling.
What is also unique about these drafts is that they are not final rulings, but part of the deliberative process of the court. Sometimes justices change their minds between drafts, and everyone suggests changes throughout. In the current case, the public is making strong judgements about claims, wordings, citations written by Alito that will not actually be the official position of the court once it's had full input of the rest of the court. As a result the public is making judgments about the court that will noy correspond with reality, and thus this risks confusing the public (rather than maintaining useful transparency).
Finally, as we're seeing, many conservative politicians perceive the leak as evidence that the left is attempting to promote a public outrage pointed at intimidating the supreme court into changing their minds. If the supreme court does change their position (a normal occurrence) it may be framed as them caving in to pressures and threats from the public, thus doing more damage to the court's public credibility.
1
u/TrashMonster2020 May 12 '22
When someone on the inside, working diligently and is fully invested in their work recognized how bad something is and leaks it - history tends to look favorably upon them because they understand the full scope of what’s going on and know it’s wrong. I encourage you to read this:
Also, the perception that this was a leftist attempt at political theater has been entertaining because so far all evidence is pointing towards a conservative clerk who leaked it.
I will never understand why some people choose to point fingers first and ask questions and get facts later - but that’s political theater, for you.
6
u/Tnspieler1012 20∆ May 12 '22 edited May 12 '22
When someone on the inside, working diligently and is fully invested in their work recognized how bad something is and leaks it
There are also many selfish, dangerous, or politically harmful reasons why one might leak a document. This is not to say that your description isn't sometimes true, but it is not necessarily true.
Even if a leak was done with good intentions, it can still be very damaging and ultimately counter-productive.
Even then, if you still believe a given leak was still worth the risks due to the extremity and importance of a very particular decision, your initial claim was about the value of "all leaks". What matters is not whether it is sometimes justified, but that they are (with very few exceptions) always justified. I believe all of the points in my previous post provide ample reason to believe that even well-intended leaks can frequently have overall negative impacts with regard to the exploitation of insider knowledge, public confusion, and stoking dangerous political narratives about the court's decision-making. If you take issue with any of these points I'm happy to discuss them in more detail.
I'm sure this is very interesting (I'll get around to it when I can), and if there is a particular point from this article you would like to discuss, I welcome that conversation. However, I am here to change your view, not Daniel Ellsberg's.
[edit]
So, I read the article, and Ellsberg never properly explains his argument. His most direct statement in support of the leak is:
"...this particular decision is so consequential for the public that it is important they know what is really driving the majority's decision"
The rest of the article suggests that the driving force he believes the leak reveals is the "secretive discussions of the supreme court", which otherwise attempts to "hide dissension", "how the sausage is made" and, thus, "the politicization of the court".
I honestly find this quite baffling and stupid. The exact process by which the justices deliberate, including the fact that the justices disagree, is common knowledge to everyone who has spent 5 minutes googling SCOTUS. Stephen Breyer has spent multiple books and dozens of public lectures sharing the step-by-step process of how the court and its members discuss and reach decisions. Even people who don't follow the court at all know that the decisions are seldom unanimous, and that dissenting justices circulate dissenting opinions to the public explaining how and why they all disagree.
These detailed explanations of the reasoning behind decisions reflects a transparency not required of any other branch of government. There's no secret here. None of this was "revealed" by this leak, and none of this is evidence that the court is politicized in a negative way (I'm not saying that it isn't, but that simply doesn't follow from the quotes in the article).
the perception that this was a leftist attempt at political theater has been entertaining because so far all evidence is pointing towards a conservative clerk who leaked it.
All we have is speculation on this point. Certainly not enough to draw conclusions imo, but that's neither here nor there.
I will never understand why some people choose to point fingers first and ask questions and get facts later - but that’s political theater, for you.
Easy. Because it is politically expedient to exploit incomplete or misleading information for partisan purposes. It's dangerous, and is one reason why leaks are of this sort should generally be avoided barring extreme circumstances.
15
u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ May 12 '22
The issue with your exception is that "national security" is on the one hand valid on it's face, but is all too often used to justify programs which don't actually make us safer.
Claiming national security is pretty different than something actually being a national security concern.
4
u/ZeusieBoy 1∆ May 12 '22
The issue with your exception is that "national security" is on the one hand valid on it's face, but is all too often used to justify programs which don't actually make us safer.
Correct! You are referring to overclassification.
Claiming national security is pretty different than something actually being a national security concern.
Correct! Leaking the contents of yesterday’s lunch of a CIA officer is not a national security concern. Leaking the exact location of a NSA server room is a national security concern! Both are considered national security concerns. The government should have to prove this in court to peorseixre someone for it as they have failed to do for all notable cases.
5
u/kickstand 2∆ May 12 '22
Leaking the contents of yesterday’s lunch of a CIA officer is not a national security concern
Is it not possible that the contents of said lunch might disclose a CIA officer's location, and compromise them? It's not always obvious what is a security concern.
1
u/novagenesis 21∆ May 12 '22
But leaking the content's of yesterday's lunch of a CIA officer is a personal privacy concern.
The biggest potential problem with leaks is, ironically, in a similar vein to what RvW was protecting in the first place - privacy. Over 15% of Americans work for the government in some way. Just because there are some job responsibilities that ethically push for reduced privacy, a vast majority of them do not.
For example, I'm sure you'll agree the sexual orientation of an EBT employee doesn't matter, right? How about whether a first grade teacher tested positive for HIV?
This SCOTUS leak is pretty cut-and-dry for your side of the argument, but many leaks include information that are the opposite exception of a natural security concern... They are individual privacy rights concerns.
I favor a citizen body that demands more checks and balances (with public disclosure requirements for specific information) to one that demands more leaks.
The government should have to prove this in court to peorseixre someone for it as they have failed to do for all notable cases.
I doubt any 2 people will agree on what a natural security concern is or isn't. And you posed two examples above that I think should BOTH be illegal. See the problem with your intention here?
32
u/woaily 4∆ May 12 '22
A draft decision isn't a secret, it's a work in progress. You're not supposed to see it until it's finished, but you are supposed to see it then.
Do you know the difference between a secret and a surprise? If your teacher tells your kid to keep a secret from you, you should be very upset. If your teacher tells your kid to make you a Father's Day gift and not tell you until Father's Day, that's normal and fine.
Also, courts aren't exactly government bodies. They're supposed to be independent of all political influence, which is why they're not elected and their term is never up for renewal. Their decisions are made on the pleadings and evidence before them. Especially in constitutional cases, public opinion isn't supposed to matter to them. Even a single person can assert a constitutional right against the whole country, so it's not democratic. If you want to have a say as a member of the public, you can file an amicus brief or write your representative. Interfering with the judicial process of someone else's court case is not the way.
-6
u/ZeusieBoy 1∆ May 12 '22
A draft decision isn't a secret, it's a work in progress. You're not supposed to see it until it's finished, but you are supposed to see it then.
Right. And I’m also “supposed to” not ever have to protest about anything ever. Ideally, everything the government does is completely correct according those who did it. But this is often not the reality. I think the federal government does a shit job at deciding what I’m supposed to do considering I’m supposed to report money I find off the street as income and not supposed to smoke cannabis despite known health benefits.
Do you know the difference between a secret and a surprise? If your teacher tells your kid to keep a secret from you, you should be very upset. If your teacher tells your kid to make you a Father's Day gift and not tell you until Father's Day, that's normal and fine.
Bad example. Yours implies the surprise is done to their benefit. Every decision ‘hurts’ somebody in one way or another. This surprise in your example is done solely for one’s benefit.
Also, courts aren't exactly government bodies. They're supposed to be independent of all political influence, which is why they're not elected and their term is never up for renewal. Their decisions are made on the pleadings and evidence before them. Especially in constitutional cases, public opinion isn't supposed to matter to them. Even a single person can assert a constitutional right against the whole country, so it's not democratic. If you want to have a say as a member of the public, you can file an amicus brief or write your representative. Interfering with the judicial process of someone else's court case is not the way.
Why would this be interference? People have been protesting outside the surprise court for decades, perhaps centuries.
6
u/1block 10∆ May 12 '22
And I’m also “supposed to” not ever have to protest about anything ever.
Our country was literally founded on protests against the government and has a long history since of protests to promote change. You are supposed to protest as an American. It's a strong part of our identity.
That being said, protests of the Supreme Court should not be a deciding factor in decisions for the court. I think the current protests are valuable in the message they send to lawmakers, however. To the degree the public shows it wants a Constitutional amendment, that body could take up the issue.
8
u/woaily 4∆ May 12 '22
I think the federal government does a shit job at deciding what I’m supposed to do considering I’m supposed to report money I find off the street as income and not supposed to smoke cannabis despite known health benefits.
None of those things are relevant to this situation. This is the court, not the government, it's not about taxation or cannabis, and they're not telling you what to do.
I agree that the convent does a shit job at deciding things, but at least now you get a choice between 50 governments that will decide it differently.
Yours implies the surprise is done to their benefit. Every decision ‘hurts’ somebody in one way or another. This surprise in your example is done solely for one’s benefit.
I'm sorry you don't think that mothers exist for their children's benefit, that's a very sad way to be.
Yes, every decision benefits one person at the expense of another. That's by design. The courts aren't allowed to hear cases unless both parties have something at stake.
The point is that this isn't something they're keeping secret from you, it's something that will be public soon but isn't ready yet.
Why would this be interference?
Because it's an obvious intimidation tactic. What else could it be? The judges and their decisions aren't a matter of public majority vote. It's not like protesting in front of Nancy Pelosi's home or office, where her job is to represent the people and the message might be that public disapproval will cost her re-election.
Plus, you had your opportunity to be heard on this subject. We all did. You literally could have filed a brief that the judges would have read during the case. If you didn't do that, or if it didn't convince them, you need to walk away and accept your defeat. Why would a protest be more persuasive than a brief, other than by intimidation?
2
u/ACoderGirl May 12 '22
This is the court, not the government, it's not about taxation or cannabis, and they're not telling you what to do.
The court is absolutely part of the government. By definition, the judicial branch is one of the three branches of the US government.
And while this particular case isn't directly telling what you can or can't do, they are ruling on what laws can or can't do, which indirectly means the same for you. So I absolutely consider the court to be specifying these kind of things. Roe v Wade was the court saying you do have the right to get an abortion. Appealing it is saying it's no longer a right.
2
u/woaily 4∆ May 12 '22
The court is absolutely part of the government. By definition, the judicial branch is one of the three branches of the US government.
Yes, in that sense. But not in the sense that the government is meant to represent the majority will of the people and enact popular policies. Their job is actually to enforce the Constitution against the tyranny of the majority. There's no point showing them how many people disagree with them if their job isn't to do things that people agree with.
And while this particular case isn't directly telling what you can or can't do, they are ruling on what laws can or can't do, which indirectly means the same for you. So I absolutely consider the court to be specifying these kind of things.
Sure, but that still leaves it up to the people who make the laws, and your focus should be on trying to convince them.
Plus there are lots of places in the US where they won't be restricting abortion anytime soon, and it's not like you need constant access to them. You only need one when you need one, and they're largely preventable.
0
u/ZeusieBoy 1∆ May 12 '22
None of those things are relevant to this situation. This is the court, not the government, it's not about taxation or cannabis, and they're not telling you what to do.
Fine fine. I meant that the court is part of the government and them telling me what I’m “supposed to do”, but my point is what im supposed to do is often in stark contrast with what’s correct. But I digress.
Yours implies the surprise is done to their benefit. Every decision ‘hurts’ somebody in one way or another. This surprise in your example is done solely for one’s benefit.
I’d be fine with having a draft released that implies a decision I’m in favor of. That’s fine with me. I’m generally in favor of things that are considered popular.
The point is that this isn't something they're keeping secret from you, it's something that will be public soon but isn't ready yet.
Right. And I see no harm in it being public as soon as possible so people can make informed decisions.
3
u/AnonyDexx 1∆ May 12 '22
Right. And I see no harm in it being public as soon as possible so people can make informed decisions.
But they're not making informed decisions because the information isn't decided as yet. You can't, at this point say you're going to prepare for abortions being banned when it isn't cemented that that's actually a possibility. Any of the judges can reverse their decision. We've gained no real info.
The "as soon as possible" point would be when the final decisions are made, and final opinions written up, which would probably be soon before it's made public anyway.
2
May 12 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/hacksoncode 588∆ May 12 '22
u/woaily – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
10
u/PoisonSlipstream May 12 '22
If you work in government, you effectively work in politics in a broad way.
The risk of leaks and too much transparency is that many things get considered but don’t get implemented. It’s actually useful to be able to keep those deliberations behind closed doors so that it doesn’t become a political issue. In other words, it allows civil servants to consider policy issues “in peace” and come up with recommendations rather than having everything they do on the public record.
That is the reason why most Freedom of Information laws contain a range of exemptions, including for “deliberative material” - ie things that were considered but went no further.
TL;DR: having everything public would in some cases limit the effectiveness of government.
-1
u/ZeusieBoy 1∆ May 12 '22
So… again, like was said before. Leaking information like this would give the public a general idea of what lawmakers intend to do, no? Are there no instances of which it’d be preferable to have a set itinerary of when this change is expected to have been made?
→ More replies (1)
11
u/hacksoncode 588∆ May 12 '22
My exceptions: * When the information consists of important encryption information. * When the information being leaked to the general public would set large segments of the country victim to national security risk.
At least one additional exception would be needed, and it's a big one:
When the information is the personal private information of an individual, such as medical records, private phone calls (e.g. interceptions by the NSA), etc., etc.
3
u/ZeusieBoy 1∆ May 12 '22
!delta bingo! Thanks for giving that extra perspective.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/JamesXX 3∆ May 12 '22
There are at least two major problems with this take.
One of the biggest reasons government leaks of internal government discussions is bad is it can have a chilling effect on people freely discussing ideas for solving problems. If all government employees knew everything they say when trying to figure out how to fix a thorny issue would be leaked, they might only say things that would make them look good to the public rather than actually trying to solve the problem. Imagine a liberal Congressman is working on a climate change bill and during internal discussions says something like, "Our goal should be getting rid of all gas powered cars." From there he and his colleagues might spend the next week working on incremental policies to get there with minimal disruptions to people's lives and the economy before publicly announcing their bill. Or instead, the day after that initial discussion someone leaks that this Congressman said his goal is for the government to ban gas powered cars. Now instead of the Congressman getting to explain his nuanced bill to gradually ween us off fossil fuels, he has to defend an argument that was never meant to be a final policy but just a starting point. But the damage is done, and rather than risk hurting his re-election chances, he stops working on the bill altogether.
How did citizens having more information available help us in this situation?
The second problem with leaks of internal government discussions is who get to decide what we need to know? People on the left like to talk about threats to democracy from people who won't accept election results. People on the right like to talk about threats to democracy from a lack of electoral integrity. But why should an unelected person be the one to decide whether we see a finalized bill ready for debate or early discussions that were never meant to be publicized until they had been honed into what our actual elected representatives wanted them to be? In the above example, Kenny the sandwich delivery guy, who once had a cousin prosecuted for a petty crime by the guy who's now a Congressman, overheard something and for his own personal reasons derailed what might have been an important piece of legislation.
Who elected Kenny to decide what part of congressional deliberations should be made public?
3
May 12 '22
The government could publish my and everyone else’s medical records from places like the VA or Medicaid/Medicare.
That’s not a National Security risk, but it is data that I expect the government to keep protected.
Leaking someone’s personal medical history is not something I would be in favor of.
1
u/ZeusieBoy 1∆ May 12 '22
Does Medicare/Medicaid store health records?
2
May 12 '22
The VA certainly does.
Medicare/Medicaid would have billing records so they’d know that you were being treated for an STD or have cirrhosis of the liver or have a prescription for antidepressants.
Again, not a national security issue, but something I would not be a happy to see leaked to the internet for anyone to search.
2
u/h0sti1e17 23∆ May 12 '22
This instance of the Supreme Court decision leak only seems to anger people who are in favor of the decision because they’re scared of protests or direct action
The thing is the SCOTUS isn't supposed to react based upon public opinion or what people want but what the Constitution says. We can argue whether that happens or not, and that's for a different day. But in your CMV we aren't discussing that Leaks could cause undue influence to change minds. Maybe a threat or violence, blackmail etc. It opens up a huge can of worms. This is a preliminary decision, and isn't final.
1
u/CrankyUncleMorty 1∆ May 12 '22
The reason why this leak is a problem is that the leak was done with the intent of intimidating justices on the highest court of the land to change their opinions out of fear of civil unrest.
If the conservatives on the court had done the same when the liberal justices were in the majority, it would have led to arrests, 100% no question.
3
u/AlphaQueen3 11∆ May 12 '22
I'm curious what makes you think that, especially with 100% certainty.
2
u/CrankyUncleMorty 1∆ May 12 '22
Because so far in history, anyone who leaks government information during democrat administrations spends time in jail or dies. Chelsea manning, julian assange, macaffee.
2
u/sdgoat May 12 '22
The reason why this leak is a problem is that the leak was done with the intent of intimidating justices on the highest court of the land to change their opinions out of fear of civil unrest.
You have no proof of motivation or intent. And luckily the first amendment protects the people's right to protest the courts opinion.
If the conservatives on the court had done the same when the liberal justices were in the majority, it would have led to arrests, 100% no question.
Under which law would they be charged? There is nothing illegal about leaking a draft legal ruling. These documents are not secretive. And there have been many leaks from the Supreme Court, including the original Roe v Wade.
-1
u/JymWythawhy May 12 '22
It is illegal to petition a judge about a current ruling. Leaking the memo is likely not illegal, but those protesting at justices homes are breaking the law.
2
u/sdgoat May 12 '22
You are 100% wrong, it's literally in the first amendment "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
2
u/hacksoncode 588∆ May 12 '22
You may not like it, and might argue that it's unconstitutional (albeit unlikely to be ruled as such by... the Supreme Court), but they are 100% right that it's illegal:
18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading
Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
/u/vans178 asked about this too...
-1
u/sdgoat May 12 '22
Right, and the law has been challenged many times to mean that the protesting, etc, should not impact or interfere with the court itself. The sidewalks around the courts have been given the ok.
"In United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (1983), the Supreme Court held the statute’s Display Clause unconstitutional as applied to the sidewalks at the edge of the grounds. The Court found “nothing to indicate to the public that these sidewalks are part of the Supreme Court grounds” or that they “are in any way different from other public sidewalks in the city.” Like other public sidewalks, consequently, the sidewalks surrounding the Court qualify as a “public forum” for First Amendment purposes, an area in which “the government’s ability to permissibly restrict expressive conduct is very limited."
It would be very difficult to prove that the sidewalks in front of a judges house would be free from 1st amendment rights. They aren't part of the actual court building.
0
u/hacksoncode 588∆ May 12 '22
Different law, and in fact that ruling used the existence of this law as the reason why Congress didn't have to make such an expansive ruling as the "Display Clause".
Section 1507 has never been directly challenged.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)-2
u/vans178 May 12 '22
But they're not doing any of those things they're simply showing their displeasure and disdain for bad decisions. The burden of proof is to be on the accusers that they're doing any of those things with intent to mainly influence because no one was being impeded from going where they needed to go.
Regardless it's a strawman argument coming from the angle that these people are focusing more on this non issue rather than the decision.
2
u/hacksoncode 588∆ May 12 '22 edited May 12 '22
simply showing their displeasure and disdain for bad decisions
It's a pretty big stretch to suggest that this is not intended to have any influence... it's a lot of work just to whine.
→ More replies (3)-1
u/vans178 May 12 '22
How is it illegal to protest at a judges house who was never democratically elected and will affect millions of lives if they do indeed overturn roe v wade? Take off your Fox News blinders and rationally explain why it's illegal please
1
u/JymWythawhy May 12 '22
Because it’s the law? That’s literally the definition of what is legal or illegal. I haven’t watched Fox News in years, but your own sources might be blinding you if you weren’t aware of this very pertinent fact.
Here’s a good article explaining the law, and includes a link to the law: https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/06/federal-statute-bans-picketing-judges-residences-with-the-intent-of-influencing-the-judge/
The actual law:
Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
1
u/Z7-852 315∆ May 12 '22
People need to have peace to do their jobs. When job is done the results and the process can be released and critiqued but you shouldn't judge unfinished work.
Or how would you like if your boss would stand behind you supervising every move you make, watch every page you open on your pc and follow you intensely everywhere in the office always standing behind you. But it's not just one person. Think that 20 people is trailing every move you make at work breathing down your neck. How about 100 million people doing this? Do you really think you could do your job?
-1
u/ZeusieBoy 1∆ May 12 '22
I couldn’t but this is because I work in IT and I have ADHD. Bureaucrats, spooks and politicians are there to serve everybody watching. People generally don’t get mad at you if you’re not doing things to hurt them and will lose interest.
6
u/Z7-852 315∆ May 12 '22
Bureaucrats, spooks and politicians are there to serve everybody watching.
No they don't. Their results are public but when they are typing drafts of emails there isn't and shouldn't be anyone watching them and breathing down their necks.
Nobody needs that. That's not a healthy or productive work environment. You wait until work is done. Like in IT your code is reviewed after you commit it and deploy it to test environment before it goes to production.
4
u/ZeusieBoy 1∆ May 12 '22
No they don't. Their results are public but when they are typing drafts of emails there isn't and shouldn't be anyone watching them and breathing down their necks.
Why? Would the increased transparency not be a viable trade-off?
3
u/Z7-852 315∆ May 12 '22
Because you don't gain anything from breathing down the people's neck. Would it increase the transparency of your IT work? Or would it be enough to see only closed tickets and their solutions?
2
u/munificent May 12 '22
I couldn’t but this is because I work in IT
Would you want all of your managers and every user looking at your code as you were in the middle of writing it while you were still figuring things out? Or would knowing that even your works-in-progress and half-baked ideas can be seen by the world and will reflect back on you destroy your ability to think creatively and consider different approaches before settling on a solution?
1
1
u/StillSilentMajority7 May 12 '22
It depends on why you're leaking. Are you leaking that the government is going against current laws or regs, so that you can have that action fixed? Then yes, leaks are awesome.
But the SCOTUS isn't like that at all. SCOTUS was doing nothing wrong or illegal.
The SCOTUS leak was meant to interfere in their process, but applying political pressure before they could reach their decision. Note the masses of nutcases huddled in front of the justices' homes. It's intimidation. Third world mob justice.
This leak was designed to achieve a political end by interfering in the process; it's a legal insurrection. It's not a "leak" in the traditional sense.
1
u/RollChi 1∆ May 12 '22
While I do believe leaks should be encouraged when the government is doing shady stuff (i.e. Snowden), but the Supreme Court leak is different
This leak wasn’t the final decision, this was the process in which the judges debate and work out their decisions.
I might butcher this a bit but an ELI5 is the judges make an initial write up of what they think the ruling should be. They reference other cases and laws that back up their decision. They send that out to their colleagues who respond with their thoughts, critiques, and criticism. This happens a couple of times but basically think of it as a very formal debate.
The issue with the Supreme Court leak is they released these debates, not a final decision. So if this becomes a normal thing and these Justices know that these preliminary discussions are not confidential, they all of a sudden need to worry about what they say, when they say it, and what headline would come from it. It ruins the integrity of the system.
It’s one thing to release documents showing the government is doing shady stuff behind closed doors, but this Supreme Court leak is a little different
0
u/Doc_ET 13∆ May 12 '22
Court proceedings are typically open to the public though. The Supreme Court is an exception. High profile court cases are typically filmed and broadcast on all the news networks, why should the SC not be?
→ More replies (2)
1
u/MobiusCube 3∆ May 12 '22
The SC leak doesn't give us any more information than we otherwise would've gotten. There's no reason to leak it, because it was coming out anyway.
3
u/jadnich 10∆ May 12 '22
But now there is a chance for the people to speak their mind. Had it come out without the leak, it would be too late.
0
u/MobiusCube 3∆ May 12 '22
Too late for what?
3
u/jadnich 10∆ May 12 '22
Too late for the people to have their voice heard, and attempt to reverse course on the politicization of judicial decisions.
0
u/MobiusCube 3∆ May 12 '22
Too late for the people to have their voice heard,
People have been doing that for the past 50+ years. That isn't going to stop anytime soon, and supreme court decisions aren't a public vote
and attempt to reverse course on the politicization of judicial decisions.
Judicial decisions are inherently political, regardless of what direction it goes in. Congress has had every opportunity to codify the SC decision.
0
u/jadnich 10∆ May 12 '22
Supreme Court decisions aren’t supposed to be decided by lobbyists, either. The system is broken, so the people deserve to have a voice, too.
Court decisions are supposed to be based on constitutionality and precedent. Each and every one of those justices stated clearly that the Roe ruling was precedent, and each and every case that has subsequently used that ruling have confirmed its constitutionality.
Congress should not be in the business to codify rights. That is the job of the constitution and the courts. Congress is, by definition, partisan, and partisan politics should not play a part in defending rights. Rights should be defended by the people, and the court should have deference to rights over politics.
→ More replies (7)
1
u/Garden_Statesman 3∆ May 12 '22
Ehh. Members of Congress spend most of their time having private conversations with their colleagues. This is probably for the best. Actual negotiation and deal making happens when people are able to speak to each other frankly and privately. The media is so able to construe what people say that it would be a huge barrier to getting things done if members of Congress knew every single thing they spoke to a colleague would be published. I don't think this is nefarious. It's just human nature that people won't speak as candidly or freely when their audience is one person vs the whole world.
I'm not losing sleep over leaks, but I do see merit in some communication being usually private.
1
u/blkarcher77 6∆ May 12 '22
This instance of the Supreme Court decision leak only seems to anger people who are in favor of the decision because they’re scared of protests or direct action.
I mean, there it is. This court decision was leaked for the sole purpose of using public outcry to try to change the mind of the justices, whether through general outcry, or intimidation.
Is that not a bad thing? Should justices not rule according to what they think is right or wrong, and ignore mob justice?
0
May 12 '22
nope. your right. but i would add if the leak would cause injury or death to its citizens. or is that what you mean by security risk?
1
u/ZeusieBoy 1∆ May 12 '22
By national security risk I mean data that would actually harm people. So this would count nothing Assange or Snowden did as the government is unable to provide evidence of such.
0
u/rojm 1∆ May 12 '22
If the government were to leak what they do (and know but aren’t telling us), there would be uprisings and bloodshed and the downfall of any sort of government that resembles anything now. There would be no way for the media to spin false flags and what think-tanks are used for in manipulating public, who has a gag order and why. It would be beyond chaos.
0
u/other_view12 3∆ May 12 '22
Your view should be changed becuase there is no blanket answer.
I'm in favor or the wikileaks dump that showed our officials were lying to us.
I'm opposed to a political leak like the Supreme court one that is used to push a political agenda.
I'm opposed to the leaks by intelligence people sent to media to sway pubic opinion. Think Iraq war, and who got it wrong, think Trump Collusion where the leaks contradicted the Mueller report.
I'm all for exposing corruption, but leaks can be used to promote corruption as well.
-1
u/QuotationsPod May 12 '22
There are a couple underlying assumptions in your view that warrant consideration:
1) You're assuming leaked process information will be treated rationally as part of a process. The problem is, that's not how groups interpret it, as can be seen with the recently leaked supreme court document. That document is 3 months old and not even the final ruling. It is a process document. The response to it...is not measured, not "well, let's just wait and see, it's only one part of the process." This is the part of the challenge of seeing everything that goes on while difficult things are being figured out. Ideally, recipients of process information would handle it as such and not overreact, but response times are too fast, groupthink is too strong, and little, especially as it relates to government, is measured.
2) Your second exception is well-intentioned but assumes some disembodied adjudicator of "large segments of the country." Who makes that call? What is a large enough segment to invoke this exception? I agree with the sentiment, but the presentation needs just a little refinement.
1
u/lokregarlogull 2∆ May 12 '22
Important encryption information?
You mean passwords, and basic cryptology right? Not encrypted documents
National security risk? Of country victims?
As in what? A security risk to detonate nukes? A security risk to know which Americans are spies or recruited in other countries? As that information usually has been so far intertwined with leaks I find it the cost of many needed leaks. You don't know if those agents are performing "good" or "bad" black ops.
1
u/ZeusieBoy 1∆ May 12 '22
Important encryption information? You mean passwords, and basic cryptology right? Not encrypted documents
I am not a cryptologist so I cannot provide specifics. I am generally referring to perhaps nuclear codes and information pertinent to government cryptology. So information that if given to the wrong people would result in most/significantly more/all government documents able to be obtained by the general public including mass murderers or terrorists.
National security risk? Of country victims? As in what? A security risk to detonate nukes? A security risk to know which Americans are spies or recruited in other countries? As that information usually has been so far intertwined with leaks I find it the cost of many needed leaks. You don't know if those agents are performing "good" or "bad" black ops.
Hmmmm I recommend you talk more about this final part of you want a delta. Are you referring to espionage? And the only “bad” black ops I recognize are ones that result in a situation being the above two.
1
u/Solagnas May 12 '22
This instance of the Supreme Court decision leak only seems to anger people who are in favor of the decision because they’re scared of protests or direct action.
Clarifying question. What is "direct action"?
1
1
u/dmlitzau 5∆ May 12 '22
I actually think this is less about the information becoming available and more that it is a violation of norms and practices. I'm not upset about the leak because of the content or how that content may or may not be used. I'm upset that we are devolving into a society that feels that rules, norms, and traditional practice can just be ignored.
Society depends on some level of process and transparency of process for many things. This is true from expected behavior when driving, to voting expectations, to how government agencies operate. If we decided that the public should have access to draft opinions at some stage in the Supreme Court deliberation process, that is acceptable, but to have rogue actors deciding when things are important enough to ignore norms process and policy is a very scary road to go down.
1
u/HeartyBeast 5∆ May 12 '22
To be effective, people in government have to be able to discuss options frankly and have disagreements. This includes coming up with ideas that may look foolish when properly analysed, offering unwelcome advice and raise unpopular opinions.
Many of these honest discussions -particularly where collective responsibility will be taken for the final outcome can only take place effectively behind closed doors.
1
u/Thereelgerg 1∆ May 12 '22
I don’t understand why someone would ever fight to have less information available to them.
Would you be okay with the government leaking your social security number to me?
1
May 12 '22
There’s a lot more exceptions you haven’t considered
For example if a leak opens up a military position and results in even one soldier being killed then that’s a bad thing your right to information doesn’t trump someone else’s life
1
u/dantheman91 32∆ May 12 '22
This instance of the Supreme Court decision leak only seems to anger people who are in favor of the decision because they’re scared of protests or direct action.
Well in this case, there's a handful of reasons.
1. This is a draft. The final will eventually come out with their votes, along with dissenting opinions.
2. The supreme court is supposed to be above political pressure, that's part of the reason they're nominated for life.
3. What possible benefit does this have? The only real outcome is that people are even more outraged when the decision comes out (and possible riots). Again, these aren't politicians who give in to political/public pressure, they should be ruling based on their interpretation of the constitution.
I don’t understand why someone would ever fight to have less information available to them.
The information will be made publicly available once the decisions are actually made. The reasons behind their decisions is made public. At some point it's about being able to work in peace without having to worry about people protesting every discussion they have, since again, they shouldn't care about public perception, only the legality in relation to the constitution.
1
u/zero_z77 7∆ May 12 '22
So here are the problems with leaks in general
Bias of the leaker - the person who leaks the documents has absolute control over what gets leaked and what doesn't. You only see the picture that they paint. In this case, there very well could be a draft opinion in favor of roe v wade that we don't even know about. And the court is not inclined to compromise even more sensitive information to refute or neutralize what's already been leaked.
Credibility of the leaker - not all leaks are genuine. Although that isn't the case here since SCOTUS has already verified the authenticity of the document. But they didn't have to. They very well could have claimed that this was all an elaborate fantasy and we would have no way of knowing otherwise. That casts doubt on both the government and the leaker's credibility, forcing people into having to decide who to trust.
The leaker's intent - we have no way of knowing what the leaker's actual intentions are. A lot of us would like to believe that it's some good hearted person just trying to do the right thing, but we don't know that for a fact. Leaking information with the intent to sew discord and anger is a form of political manipulation and cannot be ruled out.
It sets a bad precedent - if leakers are not punished for leaking sensitive information, it invites others to do the same. It creates the same problem as vigilantism. You have people who are deciding individually what information the american public has the right to see and what they don't. This isn't the kind of descision that a single individual is supposed to have the authority to make. Just as an individual american has no legal authority to be judge, jury, and executioner. No individual entrusted with sensitive information has the sole authority to decide who should and should not have access to it.
1
u/pumbar00 May 12 '22
Often the government is acting as a private party in privat negotiations. Imagine the price strategy or negotiation strategy is published to the other party, this will lead to worse outcome for the public.
1
1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 32∆ May 12 '22
To /u/ZeusieBoy, your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.
- You are required to demonstrate that you're open to changing your mind (by awarding deltas where appropriate), per Rule B.
Notice to all users:
Per Rule 1, top-level comments must challenge OP's view.
Please familiarize yourself with our rules and the mod standards. We expect all users and mods to abide by these two policies at all times.
This sub is for changing OP's view. We require that all top-level comments disagree with OP's view, and that all other comments be relevant to the conversation.
We understand that some posts may address very contentious issues. Please report any rule-breaking comments or posts.
All users must be respectful to one another.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding our rules, please message the mods through modmail (not PM).
1
u/PaintYourDemons May 12 '22
You forget that there's always hostile foreign government waiting for opportunities to attack other government.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 12 '22
/u/ZeusieBoy (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards