Legal scholar explains why report on Supreme Court leak is 'almost as chilling as the leak itself'



Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley explained Thursday why the Supreme Court's inability to find the person who leaked a court opinion is "almost as chilling as the leak itself."

What did the Supreme Court say?

After eight months of investigating, Supreme Court Marshal Gail Curley was unable to discover who leaked the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization opinion, according to a report.

The investigation included more than 100 interviews with court employees, uncovering that several employees broke confidentiality rules by telling their spouses the outcome of the case. But a forensic examination — including of court "computer devices, networks, printers and available call and text logs" — failed to uncover who gave Politico a copy of the opinion.

Curley's report provides suggestions to tighten security at the court, but also suggests that no one will be held accountable for the stunning leak.

What did Turley say?

The stunning lack of answers will lead people to say, according to Turley, that the FBI should have investigated the leak.

"The Supreme Court's report indicates that they cannot isolate the culprit among the over 80 possible suspects for the Dobbs leak. It is an admission that is almost as chilling as the leak itself," Turley wrote in a viral response. "It will likely revive concerns over whether the FBI should have been asked to take the lead on the investigation.

After all, the Supreme Court is situated "only a few blocks from the world's leading forensic investigatory body," Turley noted.

\u201c...It will likely revive concerns over whether the FBI should have been asked to take the lead on the investigation. The Court is only a few blocks from the world's leading forensic investigatory body...\u201d
— Jonathan Turley (@Jonathan Turley) 1674157385

Considering the lack of digital forensic evidence, Turley predicted leaks will become more commonplace, especially with the erosion of ethical principles that previously kept employees from divulging information.

"In this age of rage, this danger will only grow. Someone felt that they had license to leak. Some others may now feel that they have the impunity to do so," he predicted.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Supreme Court defends Alito from allegations that he leaked outcome of major 2014 case: 'Uncorroborated'



The Supreme Court is officially defending Justice Samuel Alito over accusations that he leaked the outcome of a landmark 2014 case.

What are the accusations?

Earlier this month, the New York Times published a letter written to Chief Justice John Roberts in July in which Rev. Rob Schenck accused Alito of leaking the outcome of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. to a mutual friend before the court announced its ruling.

The New York Times did not provide direct evidence to corroborate the allegations but did point to circumstantial evidence.

Still, Alito denied the allegations, as did the central figure in the story, Gail Wright, a mutual friend of Alito and Schenck.

After the Times' story, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) sent a joint letter to the Supreme Court demanding answers to the allegations and whether Alito had committed ethical violations.

What did the Supreme Court say?

Supreme Court legal counsel Ethan Torrey responded to the letter on Monday by defending Alito from the allegations.

"Justice Alito has said that neither he nor Mrs. Alito told the Wrights about the outcome of the decision in the Hobby Lobby case, or about the authorship of the opinion of the Court," Torrey explained. "Gail Wright has denied Mr. Schenck’s allegation in multiple interviews, saying the account given by Mr. Schenck was 'patently not true.'"

"Mr. Schenck’s allegation that Justice Alito or Mrs. Alito gave the Wrights advance word about the outcome in Hobby Lobby or the authorship of the Court's opinion is also uncorroborated," Torrey declared.

If doubt from key players in the story — Alito and Wright — and a lack of direct evidence are not enough to squash the allegations, Torrey also pointed to the fact that Politico, which leaked Alito's opinion of the case that overturned Roe v. Wade, was aware of the allegations but chose not to publish them over a lack of evidence.

Torrey wrote:

Politico reports that despite several months of effort, the publication was “unable to locate anyone who heard about the decision directly from either [Justice] Alito or his wife before its release at the end of June 2014.” The New York Times stated that “the evidence for Mr. Schenck’s account of the breach has gaps.”

What was the response?

Whitehouse and Johnson responded to the letter on Tuesday by complaining that it "did not substantively answer" their questions.

"Through legal counsel, the Supreme Court reiterated Justice Alito’s denials but did not substantively answer any of our questions," the lawmakers said. "The Court’s letter is an embodiment of the problems at the Court around ethics issues.

"The assertions of fact by the Court’s lawyer emerge from darkness, and overlook important facts like all the contemporaneous evidence that Mr. Schenck in fact knew both the outcome and author in advance and acted at that time on that knowledge," they added, overlooking the important fact that no direct evidence corroborates the allegations.

AOC & Stephen Colbert LOVE telling big fat lies



Stephen Colbert said something funny when he told AOC to run for president. He wasn't joking, but we're laughing at both of them. Also, the J6 committee presented explosive testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson, and it was explosive all right. It blew up in their smug NeverTrumper faces! We explain how. And Elmo got stabbed with a needle on Sesame Street.


Want more from Steven Crowder?

To enjoy more of Steven’s uncensored late-night comedy that’s actually funny, join Mug Club — the only place for all of Crowder uncensored and on demand.

Dems INCITE their OWN January 6 following Roe v. Wade



To say that the Left has gone off the deep end would be like saying the sky is blue in 2022. But the hypocrisy and void of self-awareness reach unseen levels when House Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez shifts from telling the media of her life-threatening ordeal that she claims to have suffered on January 6 to calling a Supreme Court decision "illegitimate" as she stokes the flames of outrage in the nation's capital.

In today's episode of "Louder with Crowder," Crowder covers why democrats use Roe v. Wade for their own January 6. They may not be calling it that, but we are, and we'll tell you why. Also, banning abortion is not racist, no matter how much the Left says otherwise. And California is battling inflation with more inflation because California is run by nincompoops.


Listen to the podcast here.

Want more from Steven Crowder?

To enjoy more of Steven’s uncensored late-night comedy that’s actually funny, join Mug Club — the only place for all of Crowder uncensored and on demand.

Violent RIOTS over Roe v. Wade ... in states that still have abortion



While you were enjoying your weekend and spending time with loved ones, leftists were out in the streets melting down over Roe v. Wade. We recap what you may have missed. The signs! The insurrections! The third-wave feminism! Join us as we shower ourselves in liberal tears.


Want more from Steven Crowder?

To enjoy more of Steven’s uncensored late-night comedy that’s actually funny, join Mug Club — the only place for all of Crowder uncensored and on demand.

'F*** You, Pelosi' — Crowder fact-checks Pelosi's absurd take on SCOTUS decision to overturn ROE



Today was a glorious day in the fight to protect life. You have probably heard by now that the United States Supreme Court officially overturned the Roe v. Wade decision that was once thought to protect women's liberty to choose abortion.

Today, justice prevailed, and so many reactions from the left are worth mentioning. The most notable being House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's. Speaker Pelosi had the gall to say that today's ruling resulted from former President Donald Trump "packing the courts."

Packing the courts? "F*** you!" Crowder shouted during his "Louder with Crowder" livestream. He went on to explain that packing the court means expanding the court. Trump merely appointed the appropriate number of justices as needed. Words matter, especially on matters of law. Pelosi, like many congressmen, misused legal terminology to weave a narrative. Whether by accident or by design, Pelosi created a record that is not factual, and Crowder was all over it.

Watch the clip to learn more. Download the podcast here.


Want more from Steven Crowder?

To enjoy more of Steven’s uncensored late-night comedy that’s actually funny, join Mug Club — the only place for all of Crowder uncensored and on demand.

ROE OVERTURNED: Live coverage from outside the Supreme Court



The Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health decision was finally released, and we're live in the studio to talk about it. We’ll have exclusive coverage from Ginger Snap in D.C. to detail all the best leftist meltdowns!


.

Want more from Steven Crowder?

To enjoy more of Steven’s uncensored late-night comedy that’s actually funny, join Mug Club — the only place for all of Crowder uncensored and on demand.

Breaking: Life wins as Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade



In a historic decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned its controversial Roe v. Wade opinion, which had established a constitutional right to abortion in 1973.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, a case concerning a Mississippi law that, with few exceptions, banned abortions after 15 weeks.

The court upheld the Mississippi law, which was challenged as unconstitutional under the Supreme Court precedents established in Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

Emphasizing that abortion "presents a profound moral question," Alito's opinion finds that the Constitution "does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating and prohibiting abortion."

“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division," Alito wrote.

"It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives," he added.

His words were unchanged from a draft of this opinion that was leaked to Politico in May. That unprecedented leak sent shockwaves through the nation and prompted an investigation ordered by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions. Roberts filed an opinion concurring in the judgement. The three liberal justices dissented.

Abortion rights activists rallied against the draft opinion throughout May and June, even protesting outside of the homes of Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices in an effort to get them to back down and change their votes.

Acts of violence were also committed against pro-life ministries and organizations in the name of protecting abortion rights. An anarchist group called Jane's Revenge firebombed at least two pro-life pregnancy centers, claimed responsibility for the vandalism of several more, and made terrorist threats of more violence to come. The FBI has opened an investigation into these threats and others.

It is nearly impossible to overstate the importance of the court's landmark decision in Dobbs.

Where previously state regulations on abortion had been ruled unconstitutional under Roe and Casey's precedents, now state legislatures are free to enact limits or even outright bans on abortion according to the will of the people.

Thirteen states have so-called trigger laws that will now go into effect that will criminalize abortion procedures.