In an interview with CNN’s Chris Wallace, recently departed liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said that, as far as he is aware, the identity of the enigmatic leaker of Justice Samuel Alito’s draught decision on overturning Roe v. Wade is still unknown.
Wallace inquired about the leak, which occurred in May, and said, “Within 24 hours, the chief justice ordered a probe of the leaker,” according to a transcript made available by the network. Has he or she been located?
Breyer said, “Not to my knowledge, but… I’m not privy to it.” Wallace questioned: “So the top justice never said, “Hey, we have our guy or woman?” in those months since.”
Breyer, who, while being retired, has a desk at the Supreme Court, said, “To my knowledge, no.”
His revelation comes while a thorough inquiry into the leak, the first in Supreme Court history, is ongoing.
It is still unknown if the leaked text was distributed by a conservative looking to boost support for the proposed legislation or by a liberal who was outraged by attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade, which was passed in June.
The interview will run on “Who’s Talking to Chris Wallace?” on Sunday.
Recently, other justices have also advocated for the court to continue without knowing who leaked the information.
Justice Neil Gorsuch said last month at a conference in Colorado that it is “terribly vital” to find the leaker and that he anticipates receiving a report on the investigation’s status “I hope shortly.”
Justice Elena Kagan recently said that she is unsure whether the source of the leak has been identified as a result of the probe Roberts ordered.
According to a May Washington Post article, the leaker may be a somebody who serves as a justice’s clerk.
At addition to their legal skills, candidates for clerkships in law firms are increasingly picked based on their political ideologies, according to a Post report.
According to an ABC News story, the leaker was a member of the court’s right side who did it in the hopes that the attention it would generate would ensure the five-vote majority.
The Marshal of the Supreme Court, Gail Curley, a former Army colonel and military attorney, has been tasked with finding the leaker.
Her investigation’s progress has not been discussed.
Her immediate boss at the Pentagon in her last military position before the Supreme Court, retired Army Brig. Gen. Patrick Huston, said, “I’m convinced that if the truth can be found out here, she’ll find it out and convey it in an impartial way.”
Even though he had been Curley’s supervisor for two years, Huston claimed he was very pleased by her and that she had a great reputation as a leader. However, he said he was unaware of whether Curley was married or had kids.
‘The notoriety will dissuade them from doing so because they will be frightened about sending a message that they were somehow coerced into altering their votes by the public pushback and possibly the public encouragement,’ said Supreme Court contributor for the network Kate Shaw.
It’s also conceivable that the leak originated from someone who was so horrified by the idea of Roe being overturned that alerting the public as soon as possible was of the utmost importance.
Chief Justice Warren Burger was furious in 1973 when the verdict in the Roe case was revealed a few hours before it was officially announced.
Burger reportedly threatened to administer lie detector tests to staff members, but the leaker swiftly stepped forward and claimed it was an accident.
Breyer expressed his regret for being on the wrong side of the Dobbs decision, which reversed Roe v. Wade, earlier in the conversation.
And you ask, did I approve of Dobbs’s choice? I obviously didn’t. In an interview with CNN’s Chris Wallace that will run Sunday night, he said, “Of course I didn’t.” Was I content with it? not for a second. Did I try to convince them as much as I could? Obviously, naturally. But here we are, and we’re moving forward. We make an effort to cooperate.
He forewarned his fellow justices on the Supreme Court that too strict rulings “will come around and bite you in the back.”
Because you’ll discover that what you see just doesn’t function. And the Supreme Court has that type of a problem in spades, perhaps to the dismay of others, Breyer remarked.
Dobbs broke over 50 years of precedent when the conservative justices ruled that the Constitution’s implied “right to privacy” didn’t exist, returning control over abortion regulations to the states.
A draught of the judgement was leaked to the media before it was announced in June, an unprecedented leak from a source within the high court.
When the Dobbs decision’s draught was made public in Politico, Wallace questioned if there had been an earthquake within the court.
A seismic event? Breyer enquired. That kind of stuff simply doesn’t happen, therefore it was quite hurtful. It just does not occur. We are there, too.
Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first black female justice, took Breyer’s position when she announced her retirement earlier this year.
He was a liberal who decided to leave office when the Democrats were in charge of the Senate and the White House.
When the party is divided between control of the Senate and control of the president, there are delays, Breyer said. And occasionally, a lot of time passes, and I would prefer that my own retirement and membership on the court not get entangled in what I refer to as such simply political problems.
Additionally, he refrained from criticising Ginni Thomas, the wife of conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who has been asked to appear before a House select committee on January 6 on her involvement in the effort to rescind the results of the 2020 presidential election.
I don’t go through that because I really think that women who are spouses, particularly wives of Supreme Court justices, must choose for themselves how to live their lives, pursue occupations, what sort of careers, etc., Breyer said.
I won’t be critical of Ginni Thomas since I like her. I won’t be critical of Clarence since I like him. We are there,” the liberal justice said.
While there are “occasionally” two opposing groups on the bench, according to Breyer, there is “less animosity than people assume.”
Less than you think, but I can’t rule out the possibility, Breyer added. Maybe a bit less merry, but not, I mean, I haven’t heard anybody yell at each other in that conference room.