Talk:List of United States Supreme Court leaks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Potential sources[edit]

Legoktm (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another leak from <https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/07/supreme-court-abortion-roe-roberts-alito/>:

But as of last week, the five-member majority to strike Roe remains intact, according to three conservatives close to the court who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.

--MZMcBride (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a new leak, it's more a confirmation of what Politico said in the original story: "A person familiar with the court’s deliberations said that four of the other Republican-appointed justices — Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — had voted with Alito in the conference held among the justices after hearing oral arguments in December, and that line-up remains unchanged as of this week."
In any case, I've added that into the article. Legoktm (talk) 05:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
h/t to MZ, https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1523367834444722177 counts the leaks in a different way, which might be a better way to structure it in the article. Legoktm (talk) 07:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Found these four:
New leak via Politico again: Alito’s draft opinion overturning Roe is still the only one circulated inside Supreme Court. Legoktm (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Breyer's accidental leak[edit]

Legoktm (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Legoktm (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be a list?[edit]

@MZMcBride and I have been discussing whether a list is the ideal format for this content, vs something like Cameras in the Supreme Court of the United States. A slightly broader article could focus on Confidentiality or Secrecy within the Court, incorporating content from Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Secretive_proceedings. And then leaks could be organized by type, like if it was about deliberations, the decision, or a full opinion. Thoughts? Legoktm (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From AP: For Supreme Court justices, secrecy is part of the job. Legoktm (talk) 05:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pentagon Papers case leak[edit]

Per https://twitter.com/trevortimm/status/1521481962288041985 - CBS News knew of Douglas's vote in the Pentagon Papers case ahead of the decision being released. I have a COI with the source and would appreciate someone else adding it. Legoktm (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Legoktm (talk) and MZMcBride (talk). Nominated by Legoktm (talk) at 06:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • This timely article appears to be sourced and neutral, and to meet DYK-relevant policies including avoidance of plagiarism. It's new enough and long enough, and the hooks are all sourced and of appropriate length. All are interesting, ALT1 most of all. I was wary of approving it because the cited source is weak – attributing it as one person's opinion – but I found a better source. All approved, I prefer ALT1 and I'll add a citation to the stronger source in the article. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ezlev:, thanks for the review! Regarding your concern about ALT1 being cited to one person, I don't believe the ABA Journal source you added makes much of a difference in this matter, given that too is cited back to Jonathan Peters. I don't know if that makes a significant difference for you, I think based on the number of media outlets quoting Peters, it's clear he's an expert in this field and there are no real BLP concerns here given that McLean has been dead for 100+ years. Legoktm (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity needed[edit]

  • How was Hammond determined to be the leaker?
    • Was he indicted by an in-house investigation or did he self-incriminate or did someone from Time out him?
  • Why is the reporter's disclosure (2022) positioned before the resignation-drama?
    • Is this the first time, Hammond's involvement is being disclosed by the reporter? [Otherwise, the focus on 2022 does not make sense.] That is, conditional to the answer of the first question, did the writer (of our article) intend to impress upon a reader that the in-house investigation was indeed successful? [Such be the case, the line needs to be shifted.] TrangaBellam (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @TrangaBellam: thanks for the feedback, I've reorganized and added more context to that paragraph that hopefully explains what happened and the chronology better. I think the lack of clarity was probably me trying to be overly brief when I initially wrote it. If that doesn't fully address your concerns, please let me know! Legoktm (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago: 2012 source about SCOTUS leaks[edit]

Here: The Supreme Court Leaks: The high court has a long and storied history of dishing on itself. By Jonathan Peters. July 06, 2012. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is ref #8 already :) Legoktm (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_leaks&oldid=1195177815"