Thursday, May 05, 2022

"That's SO Fetch!" 🛸

I don't think she even wrote the tweet. Which can only mean 78% of Texans are really, really poorly informed. Or that polls are for shit. Or both. I'd go with "both." Not all the trolls are on Twitter. Or are named "Elon Musk." I don't think Mitch is gonna make "fetch" happen. Not that he won't keep trying. Now if Democrats would just say something about the GOP MAGA crowd..... What? You don't know who he means? Or if he doesn't name-drop Trump, Biden doesn't mean it? Trump just want you to spell his name right.  I kinda like it that Biden doesn't make it seem all that personal, which Trump would, frankly, adore.  That's right in Trump's wheelhouse. Politico isn't being (particularly) obtuse.  But they aren't saying anything I haven't already said (you're welcome!):

In the meantime, the most urgent question is who will conduct the investigation. Roberts appointed the current marshal, Gail Curley, last year. She oversees a staff of 260 court employees, which includes the court’s police force, tasked with protecting the justices and grounds. But that internal police force has limited investigative capability. It’s primarily geared toward overseeing operations within the Supreme Court building and providing physical security for justices, employees and visitors.

Curley could request assistance from the FBI, which has the resources to aid any internal probe. But that step itself would depend on how deeply the justices want another branch’s investigators poking around into their private communications.

Then there's some clabber-gabble by William Barr darkly hinting a grand jury may be necessary (what crime it would investigate is still the question, eh, Billy boy?).  Yeah, the Justices would love for THAT to happen to them; and their families.

The scope of the Roberts-authorized investigation is unknown. A probe of the small and clubby staff of the Supreme Court would put every justice in an uncomfortable position, exposing them to questions about their phone and email records in ways that justices are rarely, if ever, confronted. And any thorough investigation is likely to also sweep up the families and close associates of justices and clerks.

“If there’s a serious investigation of who leaked, am I right that it likely includes not only all the clerks and Court staff that would have access to the opinion, but also the Justices and their families?” wondered Orin Kerr, a law professor who has argued before the Supreme Court. “Could be pretty wide-ranging.”

Here's where I remind you, as Politico won't, that Roberts is not the boss of the other justices; and Curley serves entirely at the pleasure of the Court,  She is guaranteed not to do any kind of intense investigation, and the FBI isn't coming in without permission and clear guidance on what they can, and cannot, do. They will never get either.

One last time (no promises!), with feeling:

“If a justice intentionally did it, I think that justice could be impeached and removed from office,” he said. “If a clerk did it, they could be dismissed and there might be implications at the bar.”

That's why I don't think a clerk would do this.  Or any employee who had access to the opinion.  Did a Justice do it?  They're invisible and bullet-proof.  No one is going to impeach them, and no one is going to find out.

And [Dean of the law school at UCal Berkeley Erwin] Chemerinsky raised concerns that the investigation itself could be damaging to the high court.

“My concern with the leaks investigation is that it is unclear whether any law has been violated, it is unlikely to be successful, and so interferes with the working of the Court,” he said. “I do not like leak investigations and wish they would not do this.” 

The only investigation is going to be conducted by Curley.  And it won't find anything.

Put money on it. 

In the meantime, we're keeping the elephants aliens away.


☄️🚀🛸 

at

No comments:

Post a Comment