New York Times Flips Out Over Supposed New Supreme Court NDAs

New York Times Flips Out Over Supposed New Supreme Court NDAs

The New York Times revealed that Chief Justice John Roberts issued some new measures to tighten security at the Supreme Court to prevent leaks.

Or, as the NYT frames it, to become more “secretive.”

It takes Jodi Kantor no time to mention that people supposedly want more transparency from SCOTUS:

The chief justice acted after a series of unusual leaks of internal court documents, most notably of the decision overturning the right to abortion, and news reports about ethical lapses by the justices. Trust in the institution was languishing at a historic low. Debate was intensifying over whether the black box institution should be more transparent.

Instead, the chief justice tightened the court’s hold on information. Its employees have long been expected to stay silent about what they witness behind the scenes. But starting that autumn, in a move that has not been previously reported, the chief justice converted what was once a norm into a formal contract, according to five people familiar with the shift.

Over the years, journalists and authors have sought to penetrate the court, and the justices have tried varying methods to guard its secrets. Some generations of clerks, but not others, said they were asked to sign a different kind of confidentiality pledge.

Well, I’m glad Kantor admitted that the reporters try to “penetrate the court.”

Let’s not forget that the Supreme Court has never been secretive. It’s called integrity. It’s called not playing politics.

As Professor Jonathan Turley said after the leak:

We’re living in an age of rage where nothing seems inviolate anymore, no principles seems sacred, and it makes some of us feel almost naive. Even though this is a city that floats on a rolling sea of leaks, the court was always an island of integrity, and most of us didn’t think this day would come. And I’m not too sure why. Maybe it’s because we let hope triumph over experience.

But the court has a long tradition that it would not yield to politics. It would not yield to dirty tricks. Somebody shattered that tradition, and the investigation that will now ensue is going to shatter the culture of the court. It’s going to take a lot to get to the bottom of this. Yes, it’s a small institution. It’s a small number of people that are likely involved. But whoever did this likely took steps to hide their tracks.

Kantor eventually mentions the leak of “a draft of the court’s decision overturning the federal right to abortion.”

Ma’am…that case has a name: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

In May 2022, someone leaked the decision, written by Justice Samuel Alito, that overturned Roe v. Wade.

The decision came out on June 24, 2022.

A leak from SCOTUS has never happened before, not even for Obamacare.

This wasn’t just a leak, though, and Kantor knows it.

Kantor and other media people just want exclusives and leaks to be first. They do not care that these decisions affect everyone.

The leak endangered the conservative justices twice. The justices had to have known the psycho pro-baby murder people would target them as soon as the decision came out.

Kantor never mentions the danger the justices faced after the leak.

The psychos targeted their homes:

• Pro-Abortion Activists Hold Crazed Protests At Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts Homes
• Pro-Abortion Activists Target Justice Alito’s Home
• ‘Handmaid’s Tale’ Pro-Abortion Activists Protest Outside Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s House

One man, Nicholas John Roske, stalked Kavanaugh’s house with a weapon.

Roske decided not to enter the house because federal marshals stood outside. He turned himself in.

Prosecutors said that Roske admitted he wanted to kill Kavanaugh.

Roske faced attempted murder charges.

Yeah, Roske, who now supposedly identifies as a female because, of course, only received an eight-year sentence.

Also, leaking an opinion or information about how a justice might vote could ruin everything. What if a justice changes his or her mind? What if the opinion is truly only a draft?

I believe the conservative justices wouldn’t cave, but the leftist justices? I have no doubt they would cave if they even thought about going against their side.

By the way, SCOTUS said the investigation did not find out who leaked the Dobbs opinion.

It’s obviously important to all justices because, as I said before, a leak has never happened before.

Someone leaked the draft unless a person was careless with the copy and left it somewhere.

Well, The New York Times isn’t going to stop trying to “penetrate” SCOTUS. The publication added three more reporters to its SCOTUS beat.

Again with the word secret: “What we’re doing more of is piercing the secrecy of America’s most secretive branch of government. That’s not easy. It also might not be clear to readers why it matters, since it’s the legal decisions in cases that shape society.”

Of course, it all comes down to President Donald Trump:

You’re referring particularly to the nine justices — or to paraphrase President Trump, the nine unelected judges.

KANTOR: They’re making decisions that affect all of our lives. The justices hold these seats for decades — imagine having that much power for 20, 30 years. And yet the court is a locked box. The justices are subject to few of the accountability measures that other high government jobs have — elections, visitor logs, public access to internal records.

They might argue that their transparency comes via arguments and opinions. But they retain total control over what we learn, with no opportunity for citizens or reporters to ask questions about decisions or understand what shapes the rulings. I just reported, in fact, that the chief justice recently tightened the court’s secrecy even further, imposing nondisclosure agreements on employees.

The NDA in the Supreme Court is not a big deal. The code of conduct has always included complete confidentiality and loyalty for law clerks.

The NDA just reinforces tradition and conduct.

We already have problems with activist judges. We don’t need problems with SCOTUS.

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.