(11-21-2022 01:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-21-2022 01:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2022 01:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-21-2022 12:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-20-2022 06:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Looks like you are right, as usual.

A guy takes a weekend trip and the Parliament loses their collective minds when the posting is infrequent. I take this as another sign that I post on here too much - living a normal life off-line is apparently seen as ignoring the internet people...

I should clarify - this is the first sign, outside of speculation. So saying "signs" was one step too far. I think it's a compelling piece of evidence pointing to Alito, as it sets up a potential pattern where Alito spilled the beans about a major pro-life decision before that authored. I also think it makes more sense for the Dobbs leak to be from a conservative looking to shore up support, than a liberal looking to have public opinion change a Justice's opinion.

Rank speculation is now a 'compelling piece of evidence' now? Cmon lad, you are better than that....

The NYTimes article is not rank speculation - from what it says, it is well sourced and corroborated that Alito shared the Hobby Lobby information prior to the decision being public.

The rank speculation part is that it's more logical for a conservative Justice to leak this case than a liberal Justice.

What is reported is one person heard from another person that they received a preview. At least be honest about what was reported other than your 'well sourced and corroborated' spiel above.

If you cant see the evidentiary shortcomings with the first sentence, not my problem. But it still remains rank speculation no matter how fast you dance on that.

Quote:I think it is compelling to know that a Justice has previously felt comfortable sharing information with other parties on the decisions for which they were writing the majority opinion. Certainly no smoking gun - but it is the first block in a potential pattern.

And there you go again. Be honest. At least state what was reported -- one guy who heard from another guy, who claimed a preview happened.

Quit with the compelling line of crap you continue with again.

Here is how honest people comment on it: " A former antiabortion leader claims he was tipped off to the Supreme Court’s landmark Hobby Lobby decision in 2014, before it was issued, by two associates who had dined with Alito, the author of that majority opinion" -- notice the extended chain of he said they said something happened. The above more realistic quote comes from that vaunted right wing supporter Vanity Fair.

Compelling my ass. All Signs..... lolz.

C'mon, don't go accusing me of being dishonest. I'm giving you my opinion on what I've read. I also said I went to far by saying "all signs" in the initial post...

It certainly isn't damning evidence, and it alone is not sufficient to say Alito is, without a doubt, the source of the Dobbs leak, but I think your characterization minimizes the context.

You don't touch on the evidence provided to the Times. So yes, this was not a first hand account straight from Alito, but the question begs - did Schneck make this up or was he told something that was factually incorrect? It seems highly unlikely that Schneck made this up. So the only other potential concern with the veracity would be if the couple made this up or misinterpreted what Alito said. Given that they reportedly shared the information with a request of "no emails," it seems unlikely that they made this up.

I don't think one should waive off, in totality, second hand information when forming an opinion on a matter. Yes, recognize that it's not a first hand source, but I think they can be compelling none-the-less. This is the Quad, not a court room, after all.