If by guardrails she means "deconstructed, torn down and criminal agents prosecuted then..yes."

—in the opinion, making this one perhaps a troll for the ages.

Regardless of where you fall in the merits (and I kind of see the majority's position), the Supreme Court stepping into this case and issuing a summary ruling seems like a big game hunter going after squirrels.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson chided her U.S. Supreme Court colleagues for reversing a D.C. Court of Appeals ruling involving the Fourth Amendment, saying in a dissent that the lower court was correct and that the case "does not merit the use of our summary discretion."

Justice Jackson objects to the use of the Supreme Court's discretionary authority to intercede in the case of a (likely Black) teen in D.C. found with a stolen car and re-instate evidence tossed by the DC Circuit.

The per curiam majority (Kavanaugh?) cleverly invokes "brief investigatory stop"—

I saw this and wondered why Ali was posting a headline from 2018....

It's time to end the whole thing.

If the Supreme Court has a client, it's us. The arguments and briefs are public documents. Frankly there's no reason that *good* faith deliberations should be kept secret.

This is nothing more than a brass-knuckle attempt to intimidate those covering the court and providing transparency that the American public deserves.

This makes Roberts look bad, and his defenders would love to make that a crime.

Needless to say, justices have no enforceable (i.e. meaningful) code of conduct. So...what exactly would they be violating?

And if the deliberations were in good faith, why the fuss? The question answers itself.

I think six members of this court take separation doctrine very seriously—the same way Eisenhower took the pillboxes of Normandy seriously—i.e. an obstacle to be conquered.

The same should apply here.

/end

Ridiculous ideas put forward by the right have an annoying habit of becoming law these days, and we ignore them at our peril.

We've yet to see whether the homework done by Wurman, Lash, et al will bear fruit, but those who attacked their work from the jump were right to do so.

In other words, as ridiculous as it sounds to those who know the current state of the law, it would be a bad idea to treat it dismissively.

To quote the Shakespeare's Dauphin (if memory serves): "Well, though we think it not so, 'tis best to weigh the enemy more mighty than he seems."

-re-making the law piece-by-piece as a result.

If the law is like the bricks of the house, articles like this by Sachs form the mortar—the reasoning that anchors those bricks together, allowing the edifice to be built ever higher.

But I do think I'm on solid ground in saying that the court's right wing is working on a deliberate agenda over and above simply acting as a 'balls-and-strikes' arbiter or court of last resort.

Too often cases that seem to observers to be slam dunks by have come out another way-

Of course I can't know whether or to what extent this particular article is intended for that audiece of six...and I'm certainly not qualified to analyze the legal ins-and-outs (at least as it has existed until now).

-will be subject to potential disbarment. In-house counsel would refuse to go near stories like this, leaving editors in the dark about the boundaries of the law. The effect would be to effectively kill such leaks.

-will be taken quite seriously by six people at One First Street. And they just might wind up in an opinion setting important limits on what newspapers or media can publish.

Someday soon, maybe not only reporters but *any* attorney who helps to vet and approve a story like this one-

-but to modify or even completely overturn it. I predict as much in Trump v Barbara and I would guess that here we will similarly soon see an attack on the Sullivan decision. How do we know? We don't for sure, but op-eds like this, as ridiculous as they seem to reasonable people-

So when a leak such as this recent one happens, it becomes fodder for the right to attack not just the leaker, but the freedom of the press that made it possible to report these documents.

We have often found that when this court takes up a case, it is not to re-affirm an existing principle-

—and do it so that they can help the overall agenda.

In this case, Justice Thomas (and perhaps others) have signaled a desire to undermine or kill NYTimes v Sullivan, which grants strong legal protections to the press.

—a Great Oz—pulling all the levers and pushing all the buttons (although...but that's another discussion).

The point is that in general, pieces like this from the right are not simply the product of someone expressing a personal viewpoint, but of someone trying to supply an *advertised* need—

As a general rule, my assumption is that articles such as this are part of a deliberate and coordinated effort to provide grounding and support for things that are on the Supreme Court FedSoc Wing's agenda.

That's not to say that it's all mapped out in detail or that there's one central person—

And they need extra funding

Schadenfraulein

a man in a green leather jacket is smiling in front of a phone booth ALT: a man in a green leather jacket is smiling in front of a phone booth

Doing so without providing any reasoning strikes me as Dolby-suspicious.

Of the three cabinet members fired by Trump, none were men.

Yup. And a bunch of Dems voted for her

Court Leaks and Attorney-Journalists The professional-ethics implications of making court confidences public.

Harvard Law professor Stephen Sachs seeding the ground for a revision of NYTimes v Sullivan. Of course this would in theory only impact reporters who are also lawyers. But this is hardly an insignificant number in this world.
blog.dividedargument.com/p/court-leak...

An aggressive court might also extend this reasoning to attorneys who are involved (i.e. the paper's attorneys) and not just ones who show up on the byline.

Court Leaks and Attorney-Journalists The professional-ethics implications of making court confidences public.

Harvard Law professor Stephen Sachs seeding the ground for a revision of NYTimes v Sullivan. Of course this would in theory only impact reporters who are also lawyers. But this is hardly an insignificant number in this world.
blog.dividedargument.com/p/court-leak...