Read some of this the other day --
When Alito said that he had a pretty good idea who leaked the memo regarding Dobbs last year - but had no solid evidence that would hold up - that's when for the first time - the left thinks it was a conservative.
Un-BY-GOD-believable. What in the hell - why would it be in the interest of the RIGHT to EVER leak such a thing?
This wasn't even a vain thought balloon - it's what they believe and were shocked to hear Alito say it's not a conservative person.
While we're at it - it's been a year. Today. Been a year and we've caught all kinds of baddies committing all sorts of heinous crimes. This is a potential pool of I think Judge Alito said, 38 persons. You know, homicide detectives would LOVE to have their suspect pool be that small. And they got bupkis.
And see, with the way our law enforcement has been at the federal level - it's hard to believe that if the most likely suspect was conservative that they wouldn't move INSTANTLY under the current administration. You have to think that if they have ANY IDEA who it is, the precaution they're taking is because it would cast doubt on the wrong person.
BUT - - -
WHAT WOULD BE THE MOTIVATION to leak that the SCOTUS was considering overturning Wade? I seriously can ONLY THINK OF ONE. Outrage on the left. And that's what happened.
I don't think that was the first time the left thought it was a conservative Justice (or, e.g., one of their clerks or family members) who leaked the draft opinion. I talked to several liberals who thought that was likely and, IIRC, think some pundits speculated to that effect. I recall a number of people pointing at Justice Thomas' wife.
When asked I told the people I know that it could easily have been either side that leaked it. If I had to put a number on it, I'd have said 60/40 - 60% chance that someone from the conservative side leaked it and 40% chance that someone from the liberal side leaked it. But anyone without inside knowledge who claims to know with any certainty is either being disingenuous or kidding themselves.
Some of the things Justice Alito said in that interview are troubling. Before I read that I thought him as likely as any other to have been the leaker (maybe slightly more so, given his history and specifics of the situation). But some of the things he said seem more likely to be said (by a Justice) if the intent is distraction rather than cander. So that interview makes me more suspicious of him, not less. It was just sketchy. And he doesn't exactly have a track record of being as intellectually honest as, say, Justice Thomas. If Justice Thomas said such things, I'd tend to believe him.
As for the possible motivations, there are several. Some face outward (from the Court's perspective) and some face inward.
For one, the Justices no doubt realized that this decision - for a number of reasons - wasn't likely to help Republicans in the upcoming elections. Those against abortion tend to vote regardless, and they've effectively been on the losing side of the issue for a while so they've been somewhat more motivated to vote because they're fighting for something they believe in. Those on the other side had less need to fight because they've effectively been on the winning side of the issue for decades. There was less visceral urge; things were already more or less how they wanted things to be. Additionally, they tend not to vote as reliably as the other side. This decision was going to be a big motivator in races that were all about turnout - who could fire their people up more.
Democratic strategist no doubt saw the decision as a net plus when it came to upcoming elections. With that being the case, might it help just a little to get it out there sooner rather than later, to take some of the sting out of the issue? It probably wasn't going to help much in that regard. But to the extent leaking it early for electoral strategy reasons made sense, it made more sense for conservatives. If it was going to come out eventually anyway, liberals were at least as well off letting it be closer to the election. (Most conservatives I've spoken to agree on this aspect. And if anyone questions that the decision was an electoral motivator for liberals more so than conservatives, take a look at the incredible turnout in Kansas for the abortion amendment vote.)
Then there are inward facing motivations, i.e. either to lock in a wishy-washy vote to overturn Roe or to intimidate such a vote into changing. I think either motivation is plausible, though perhaps not likely to be effective. Liberals certainly could have been taking a shot to get Justice Kavanaugh to soften his stance (i.e. not go so far as to vote to repeal Roe). But conservatives also could have been trying to hold together a fragile majority. This was an early draft opinion that was leaked, so it's quite possible the majority was still a little uncertain. Trying to 'hold the majority' is something opinion writers sometimes have to consider - how far can I go with certain lines of reasoning without losing a critical vote? After all, in order for a majority opinion to remain a majority opinion a majority of the Justices have to sign the final draft of it.
Justice Kavanaugh wrote an unjoined concurring opinion suggesting he was a little queasy about the possible effects of this decision - effectively trying to walk it back just a bit. And he's the one we'd have expected to be a little wishy washy. Chief Justice Roberts was always unlikely to go along with overturning Roe in this case (though he'd be willing to in others), because he is a predictable judicial minimalist. He tends to not want to do more with a decision than is absolutely necessary to resolve the case at hand. So, because he felt the law in question could be upheld without overturning Roe (i.e., that it was constitutional even under the guidelines put in place by Roe and Casey), he wasn't going to go along with the other conservatives and vote to overturn Roe. That being the case, losing Justice Kavanaugh would have meant a 4-2-3 split and Chief Justice Roberts' (or Justice Kavanaugh's) opinion upholding the law but not overturning Roe would have controlled (because the other 4 conservatives would have agreed with upholding the law). Many conservatives (both on the Court and in general) obviously wanted a decision that went further than that.
With those realities in mind, it's easy for me to see either side leaking the draft. One side would be trying to scare Justice Kavanaugh with public outrage. The other would be in effect saying... you can't change your vote because now everyone will know that's what happened and they'll think it's because you were intimidated. You'll face outrage from the other side.
Those things said, did you read the statement from the Court regarding the investigation? It goes into why they haven't been able to conclusively identify the leaker. In part, it's because the technology used by the Court doesn't allow for the forensic tracking that would be needed absent a confession or eyewitnesses. It's also possible that the leak was inadvertent (from the perspective of the Justices and staff) - e.g., someone took a copy home and someone else in their home found it and took it open themselves to leak it. Maybe they were outraged by it? I think it would be silly to think that the Justices (and clerks) don't sometimes share thoughts and details of decisions with, e.g., their spouses.
Lastly, it was considerably more than 38 persons who could have been the source of the leak. IIRC, according to the investigation, it was closer to a hundred who had access to a copy of the draft.
