An entire industry of commentators has tied its legitimacy to the Court, and they will obfuscate, semanticize, and quibble. These figures have long forestalled any backlash to the Court’s right-wing radicalism by muddying the waters about the significance of an appointment, a decision, a precedent. They have lied to the public, so that it does not realize what is being taken from it. In response to this decision, they will insist that the unprecedented leak is more important than the world the draft threatens to create. It is not.Right on cue, that fucking newspaper ("analysis" not "opinion"):
The court sustained collateral damage in March, when it emerged that Virginia Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, had sent incendiary text messages to the Trump White House in the weeks leading up to the Jan. 6 attack and that Justice Thomas not only had failed to disqualify himself from a related case but also had cast the sole noted dissent.Imagine thinking the latter was worse than the former.The harm from the leak was more direct, raising questions about whether the court is capable of functioning in an orderly way.
Adam Liptak is the Supreme Court correspondent for the New York Times. I'm actually very curious if he'd have published the leaked opinion, or if he would see it as not an appropriate step for a Royal Correspondent.
What is this if not playing defense? And making things up to do it?
Additional drafts have almost surely been produced since then, as Justice Alito refined his arguments, made changes to accommodate his allies, responded to criticisms in one or more draft concurrences or dissents — and, crucially, worked to make sure he did not lose his majority. The court’s actual decision is not likely to land until late June. Image