Hoping this Scotus "Leak" is true: Trump is going to lose all of the tax cases either 5-4 or 6-3.

[kpete]

(I have no idea if this is true, but it is juicy)

A staffer for either Thomas, Alito or Kavanaugh, leaked to Barr and the White House that the big boy is going to lose all of the tax cases either 5-4 or 6-3. This is why they tried to pull their little maneuver tonight.

Link to tweet

?s=20

Background:
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/june-19-2020?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo4MDE1MzEzLCJwb3N0X2lkIjo1NzA4NzcsIl8iOiJlZ0RoTSIsImlhdCI6MTU5MjY0ODc5NywiZXhwIjoxNTkyNjUyMzk3LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMjA1MzMiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.e3SmjEGx6BKvIWloL222S5T_L8ovUFMfhg5jons7HQY&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share

[Maeve]

1. That could be fun!

[BComplex]

37. It has to be Kavanaugh. That's why they had to put him on the court; to keep an eye out for trump

and barr. Kavanaugh has no ethics. He's a rapist and a cheat. He's a snake and a tool.

[Lucinda]

2. Interesting...

The next week or so should be eventful

[safeinOhio]

3. Final nail in his coffin.

I think a large National celebration would be called for.

[Mme. Defarge]

19. Been saving a bottle of expensive Champagne

from election night of 2016 for just such an occasion.

[tanyev]

20. Me too! Hope it's still good.

But I’ve got a less expensive backup on hand, just in case.

[Mme. Defarge]

23. Good advice!

Confusion to the enemy! 🥂

[smirkymonkey]

4. Oh please, oh please, oh please!

[Mike 03]

5. Very interesting, and so is his twitter timeline.

Wonder who this guy is. He must be a political junky to have taken on the persona of a senator who died in the 1980s. (The actual Senator Young took office in 1945--what a year to join the US Senate!) Think I'll follow him.

[dem4decades]

6. Would like to believe but when's the last time a SC decision has been leaked?

[Renew Deal]

10. I have the same thought

But you never know when it comes to the cultists. They will corrupt everything.

[Hortensis]

29. Same thoughts. Corruption has become so rampant in

RW government circles, even infiltrating and embedding in the Supreme Court, that bad character has become a job requirement. Seriously.

Shades of the famous Midnight Runs of Devin Nunes to the WH shrubbery while he was in charge of the house intelligence committee's investigation into Trump-Russia.

[mn9driver]

11. Good question, but then again when was the last time a S.C. decision could end a presidency?

[PWPippinesq]

12. Maybe not end one but they did award an election and thus the Presidency to Bush.

[fleur-de-lisa]

14. Yep.

[yardwork]

18. These are unusual times.

[MontanaMama]

7. Geoffrey Bergman's very life might be at risk.

I hope he’s got protection and I hope he’s got flash drives full of information stashed somewhere safe.

[honest.abe]

8. I would bet money this is true.

and number 5 is Roberts.

[Renew Deal]

9. That would be corruption on a massive scale

The Supreme Court doesn’t leak. It should be investigated if this happens.

[Buckeyeblue]

26. I bet the chief justice gives the president a heads up about big decisions

It seems like it would be professional courtesy.

[Polybius]

27. I highly doubt it

Trump doesn't even like Roberts. But who knows, maybe Roberts is just a respectful guy, you could be right.

[BComplex]

35. I think it's linked through a republican friend in the Senate or on staff.

Just a feeling. No facts to back it up.

[aeromanKC]

13. If it is 6-3, then 6 would be a Trump appointee..??

Gorsuch? That would be ironic.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

15. This is so unlikely as to be irresponsible.

"This" as in "a leak."

[Lonestarblue]

16. If there was a leak, my bet is on Kavanaugh just to give Barr the heads up.

Kavanaugh is a slimy SOB, not beyond unethical dealings.

[BComplex]

36. Bingo! Kavanaugh is a trump/barr snake.

And he has no honor, and never should have been placed on the court. Kavanaugh is the one leaking to the trump team. He's their plant.

[StarfishSaver]

17. I'd like to believe that, but doubt anything leaked from the Court

One tell this guy isn't really plugged in is the term "staffer." Judges chambers are staffed by clerks and secretaries. They're not referred to as "staffers" by insiders.

[Hortensis]

30. This isn't our mother's Court, tho. May be about the word choice,

but Kavanaugh alone is a very dirty, unscrupulous political operative. We know from watching this administration and their counterparts in congress for years now that dirty operators seek each other out and hire their own kind to work with.

And we've seen that their very presence signals a collapse of the ethical structures that had constrained others of weak integrity from outright corruption. Those believed to be ethical because they behaved that way when violations would be quickly pounced on, who then turned into Barres. Not much of a stretch to imagine Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas in that category. Scalia!

So I find passing of information to Trump not only very credible but something that would even be expected members of this cabal at the SC needed to tip off the WH. And expected adverse decisions on cases related to Trump's business before the election would seem to qualify. Desperation time.

Only wish they were caught holding midnight meetings in the WH shrubbery again.

[StarfishSaver]

32. I don't believe anyone from their chambers leaked it

And, even if they did, I really doubt the people they leaked to would be going around talking about it so that it got to some obscure person on Twitter but no one else knows about it ...

[Hortensis]

33. Well, that's a real point. But once it's gotten to the

swamp creatures in the WH anything might leak. They've infiltrated their corruption into all three branches of government now, embedded into the SC through the coordinated efforts of their sort in the executive and legislative branches.

But you're entirely right that I am running away with this speculation. If not secret info SCOTUS rulings, did something else suddenly trigger Trump's attempt to stop the SDNY investigations at this point?

[StarfishSaver]

39. Who knows?

And you could be right. Nothing is very certain these days ...

[BannonsLiver]

21. I wouldn't trust anything coming out of those offices

All three of those men are evil to their core and their staff is likely to be as well. Something about it smells. It’s just too easy.

[SergeStorms]

22. Wouldn't that be lovely.

I'll believe it when I see it though. The Orange Hemorrhoid never seems to suffer the same slings and arrows as everyone else.

[DesertRat]

24. Who is the person behind this twitter account?

It's fun to think this is a real leak, but I'm not holding my breath.

[ramblin_dave]

25. Who posted this? Senator Milton Young died in 1983

So I would say this has no credibility

[Polybius]

28. Wow, so the conservatives are going to lose every big decision in a two week span?

They just lost two big ones (DACA and LGBTQ protection), and lost a somewhat smaller one too. I forget which one that was, but it was the same day as the LGBTQ protection ruling.

Plus the SC isn't gonna side with the faithless electors or the abortion case either. Conservative SC? What conservative SC?

[crickets]

31. If true, it would be fantastic news.

Leaks from the Supreme Court, though?

Re your link to a good read from Heather Cox Richardson, there's a great post by Silent3 that you might want to see:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100213615353

[BComplex]

34. I KNEW IT!! I told my husband last night during the news that there was a leak in the

Supremes' ranks, letting Barr and Trump know the jig was up!

[BComplex]

38. As per the link: What did Barr "out & out lie about"?

From the link:

"Law professor Stephen Vladeck also asked us to keep in mind that Barr “out-and-out * lied * in a written statement—and in a context in which there could have been little question to him that Berman would publicly call him out for doing so… And he did it anyway.” “Something * really * stinks,” Vladeck concluded. "

What was the written statement in which Barr out & out lied?

[GeorgiaPeanut]

40. Based on the merits

It will most likely be a unanimous decision against Trump. There are two prior precedents in Nixon and Clinton cases where there were unanimous decisions against the sitting president regarding discovery.