SCOTUS reveals it 'can't' identify who leaked Roe v Wade overturn draft, Internet asks 'unable or unwilling?'
WASHINGTON DC: The 1973 Roe v Wade decision by the Supreme Court made abortion in the United States a constitutional right for almost fifty years. The country's top court reversed that decision on Friday, June 24, 2022, with a 6-3 vote. With abortion restrictions taking effect in over half of the states, the decision was anticipated to impact the lives of American women.
Many people are curious about the source of the SCOTUS draft ruling against Roe v Wade. In a report issued on Thursday, January 20, 2023, the Supreme Court stated that it had been unable to identify the individual or persons responsible for the leak of the historic draft of the judgment to Politico in May 2022. The inquiry, directed by Chief Justice John Roberts, to find the person lasted eight months and was led by Court Marshal Gail Curley and a team of detectives.
READ MORE
Phoebe Bridgers shares 'easy' abortion story after Roe v. Wade leak
SCOTUS's decision to overturn Roe v Wade slammed as 'FAR-RIGHT EXTREMISM'
The report outlines the investigation's numerous procedures, including interviewing 97 court officials, following up with some of them in-depth, engaging forensic experts to determine who saw the draft, who printed it out, who sent it and more. As reported by NPR, each and every member of staff who had access to the draft opinion signed sworn affidavits stating that they did not release it or were aware of anyone who did.
A few people did claim that they had informed their spouses of the decision and the vote in the case. However, as the report states, "At this time, by a preponderance of the evidence standard, it is not possible to determine the identity of any individual who may have disclosed the document or how the draft opinion ended up with Politico."
"It is unlikely that the public disclosure was caused by a hack of the Court's IT systems," the report stated. But the "pandemic and resulting expansion of the ability to work from home, as well as gaps in the Court's security policies, created an environment where it was too easy to remove sensitive information from the building and the Court's IT networks. And that increased the risk of both deliberate and accidental disclosures of Court-sensitive information."
Supreme Court Marshal Gail Curley's inquiry was mostly focused on the courthouse and those who work there. Thus, most activities people carried out using personal devices at home or elsewhere were generally out of its purview, reported NBC.
The report stated that the investigation's focus was on permanent staff and the legal clerks who work for each justice for a year, not the justices themselves. "No one confessed to publicly disclosing the document and none of the available forensic and other evidence provided a basis for identifying any individual as the source of the document," Curley stated. "If a court employee disclosed the draft opinion, that person brazenly violated a system that was built fundamentally on trust with limited safeguards to regulate and constrain access to very sensitive information," she added.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett concurred with Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion. Kavanaugh and Thomas also submitted supporting opinions. In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts argued for a more specific ruling while nevertheless supporting the ruling, as per CNA. "The Court’s decision to overrule Roe and Casey is a serious jolt to the legal system—regardless of how you view those cases," he stated.
"A narrower decision rejecting the misguided viability line would be markedly less unsettling, and nothing more is needed to decide this case," he said, adding, "My point is that Roe adopted two distinct rules of constitutional law: one, that a woman has the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy; two, that such right may be overridden by the State’s legitimate interests when the fetus is viable outside the womb." He later said, "The latter is obviously distinct from the former. I would abandon that timing rule, but see no need in this case to consider the basic right."
Politico shocked the nation as it reported on the leaked opinion with protesters gathering outside the Supreme Court in large numbers, carrying signs and making chants on May 2. The draft rejects the 1973 decision guaranteeing constitutional protection of abortion rights. It centers on the case of Dobbs v Jackson, concerning a challenge to Mississippi's 15-week ban on abortion.
'Unable to...Or don't want to?'
The US legal system was criticized and questioned on the internet after the Supreme Court revealed that it cannot identify the leaker. A user on Reddit commented, "Unable to... Or don't want to?" Another user said, "I heard it was Justice “I Like Beer” who was wavering but it’s never going to be sorted out now." One person wrote, "I think the FBI is not leading the investigation because leaking court decisions to journalists isn't a crime."
One user penned, "Don't want to is the only right answer. Keep in mind it was not even an 'official' and independent investigation, so what can you expect. Done by an inhouse employee who's task it is to protect the building, allegedly, so..." "They didn't investigate any of the Supreme Court Justices, so I would go with didn't want to," penned another.
This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.