I used to write an article that reviews law on scandals in the United States Supreme Court. I sent a copy of it to the Supreme Court judge. That justice is Samuel Alito.
Sorry for the name falling out, but it’s true. I told Justice Alito about “Scandal! Early Bulletin on the Supreme Court and the Journalist-Judicial Split” was at a work dinner many years ago and he showed interest, so I sent a copy to his rooms. it in Court. The article focuses on the acrimonious relationship especially in the 1800s between Supreme Court justices and the journalists who covered them.
Journalists used to flatter judges (the men in their stunning justice gowns had “elegant, seriousness, and neatness,” they would write, daring not to question the question. of such majesty or further investigation) and then, suddenly, journalists stop flattery (an important justice should comb his “uncomfortably messy black hair”, another justice has “woman’s mouth”, and more).
Who doesn’t want a camera in the courtroom these days? Back then, in the 1800s, female judges with tangled hair and mouths didn’t allow sketches or any form of notes. Today’s judges who complain about the media and who argue that laws need to be changed to dominate the press? This is what his alleged poor eyesight and childless marriage wrote back then: that journalists invade privacy, unearth domestic scandals, conceal themselves “according to step open men to uncover political secrets.”
Political secrecy as a result in pending cases before the Court. The Leaked draft comments suggests conservative judges want to overturn the Roe v. Wade case? That’s just the latest example.
It has been claimed that this week leaks about Dobbs sues Jackson Women’s Health Organization To be “never happend, “But not so. Take Dred Scott’s terrifying decision that in the mid-1800s slavery was perpetuated, one of the first, if not the first, leaks. Three months before the final comments were made, newspapers began reporting on the vote, 7-2, which meant a verdict against Dred Scott, the former slave man who sought way to a free state to argue for the freedom of the family. “Slavery,” one of the newspapers predicted with confidence and trepidation in the weeks leading up to the final decision, “will thus become a national institution,” is enforced. by the “slave majority” of the Court, judges of “notorious, rank and smell[ed] to heaven.”
That report was essentially noticed in many ways. And, similar to today, newspapers warned back then that the decision against Dred Scott would do “much to divest”. [the Court] affect ethics, and undermine the country’s confidence” in the Court as an institution. The decision was that, when the 2014 law review article was submitted to Justice Alito, an article “that many people disrespected, written by a Justice that was against him, was by someone in Court. disclosed to the media before officially handing down. ”
Another thing that sounds familiar. Back then, the Court also conducted similar investigations after the leak. Bold theories arose in the 1800s about who might be the culprit in a variety of cases: an insider was drunk; another person has earned cash; a member of a faction on Wall Street friendly with certain judges; an employee of the Supreme Court; a justice of its own.
Today, we may never find out who sent Alito’s majority opinion manuscript to outsiders. Back then, it was pretty clear that it was Justice Stephen Field himself in some cases. Here are some of what New York Times Written: “[U]Until recently. . . We have assumed that the Judges themselves are not inclined to speak ill. Obviously we overlooked Mr. Justice Field. “He loves to talk,” the newspaper added, “and when the source of the speech is unleashed by the generous influences of a good dinner, he flows like a river.”
