So, that’s that? The Supreme Court of the United States was compromised, likely internally, and Chief Justice John Roberts is satisfied with leaving the identity of the abortion draft leaker unknown.
Alternate headline: “Supreme Court Decides To Let Abortion Draft Leaker Remain Anonymous to Avoid Embarrassment”
Keep in mind, this person is still probably working at the court and could do the same thing in the future on a controversial ruling they may disagree with. I don’t think it’s out of the question to ask why every Court staff member and clerk wasn’t subject to a polygraph test. Other government agencies do it, why can’t the Supreme Court?
According to reports coming out this afternoon, after an exhaustive search, the marshall of the court, Gail Curley, came up empty in trying to identify the leaker:
An investigation into the leak of a bombshell Supreme Court ruling overturning the federal constitutional right to abortion — weeks before it was officially released — failed to identify the culprit, the court said Thursday.
The failure to find the source of the leak was yet another embarrassing development for the Supreme Court, which on Thursday called the leak “one of the worst betrayals of trust in its history” and “a grave assault on the judicial process.”
On the heels of the leak, Chief Justice John Roberts directed Gail Curley, the marshal of the Supreme Court, to investigate who released the draft opinion to Politico.
“In following up on all available leads … the Marshal’s team performed additional forensic analysis and conducted multiple follow-up interviews of certain employees,” the Supreme Court said in a statement Thursday, which was accompanied by the release of Curley’s report on the probe.
“But the team has to date been unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence,” the court said.
In her report, Curley said that investigators had examined the court’s computer devices, networks, printers, “and available call and text logs.”
But “investigators have found no forensic evidence indicating who disclosed the draft opinion,” Curley wrote.
She also noted that her team “conducted 126 formal interviews of 97 employees, all of whom denied disclosing the opinion.”
Was the marshall unable to find the leaker or did the Chief Justice decide to spare his court from embarrassment and simply say the investigation was inconclusive? It seems improbable that in such a small, tight-knit body, where only a select number of people have access to draft rulings, the investigation was unable to identify even a likely suspect.
As Megyn Kelly said of the news, why isn’t the matter being handed off to the FBI or some other law enforcement agency rather than the in-house marshall?
If this is true, it’s a DISGRACE. But it’s likely not true, an intentional evasion to avoid embarrassing someone, and that too is a DISGRACE. They’re not even handing it off to the FBI or a 3d party? What a joke! Phoned it in & now want us to look away. https://t.co/IPUm6FjNVJ
— Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) January 19, 2023
Justice Roberts’ tenure has been marred by his desire to present a politically neutral veneer of the court by writing opinions that try to placate both sides of the issue. In that regard, he’s become a politician as head of a judicial body that should be focused solely only reason free from passion. Who knows, it could’ve been Roberts himself who leaked the ruling to try and persuade the conservatives on the court to dial it back a bit. At this point, nothing is off the table since the investigation leaves the mess unresolved.
It seems impossible to think that the individual responsible will remain walking the halls and working on cases. In essence, the Supreme Court has a mole in it now and the Chief Justice seems to have decided that it’s OK and everyone just needs to move on.
As stated above, for issues this grave, polygraph examinations shouldn’t be out of the question.
Donate Now to Support Election Central
- Help defend independent journalism
- Directly support this website and our efforts