Rotten To The Court
Can you imagine what a scandal it would be if one of the most famous reporters assigned to the Supreme Court beat openly toyed with the deaths of Justices as well as the downfall of the USA?
I hate to break it to you, but this isn't a hypothetical thought exercise. I witnessed it in person.
Naturally, it begs the question: do we need to vet who gets to cover the highest law of the land?
Prima Facie
Two weeks ago, I walked past a poster advertising an event featuring Slate's Mark Joseph Stern. As someone curious about the inner workings of the Supreme Court, I made it a point to attend.
To be clear, I did not go there with any intention to relay my experience. I truly wanted to shore up an area of intellectual weakness by listening to an expert. If offered the chance, I also hoped to ask the speaker his thoughts on the probabilities of an expanded and/or weakened Court.
That all changed after Stern casually dropped some of the most wildly inappropriate viewpoints I've ever heard uttered by a commentator. It quickly became obvious that this journalist, who has been tethered to The Nine for over a decade, was himself worthy of an editorial.
Nemo Tenetur Seipsum Accusare
You're probably wondering why a renowned legal pundit would incriminate himself in front of a room full of strangers. It seems careless, to say the least. Once I give you the context, though, it all makes perfect sense: the club for Democrats at Georgetown University invited (former executive board member) Stern back to campus. As such, I'm guessing he figured he could speak freely when surrounded by kindred spirits who I don't believe were recording audio or video. [Frankly, I was still surprised he did, considering my age made me stick out like a sore thumb.]
Early on, his remarks were ridiculously partisan but remained within the realm of civilized debate. Perhaps the best example of this was his proclamation that, "When liberal judges see the system is being gamed, they don't play ball." Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about our judicial system understands how flawed that broad generalization is. It wasn't that long ago that a Carter appointee to the US Court of Appeals tried to effectively neuter the 2nd Amendment. In fact, that entire circuit is notorious for being "an extremely liberal federal appellate court," according to The National Law Journal. So, why did Stern declare it? Almost certainly because it helped sharpen the contrast between the far-left team on his "activist hat" and conservative appointees. [Punctuated by his animus toward Hon. Matthew Kacsmaryk of Texas -- who he deems "insane."]
Things genuinely started to go off the rails when Stern pined for the (presumably natural) deaths of Supremes with whom he disagrees. While it would be naive to pretend dogmatic demagogues don't think this way, it's quite different to watch them express their poisonous ideas to a crowd full of impressionable teenage foot soldiers who then giggle in approval.
What came next cemented how despicable a character he is. In response to an inquiry that Stern summarized as "a good old-fashioned constitutional crisis that leads you to the end of the American republic," he posed the following query, "Would that be a bad thing?"
Just so we're all on the same page here, an influencer linked to one of our bedrock institutions suggested that flushing our country down the toilet is worth contemplating. Does that type of speech qualify as treason or sedition? Would it in a defunct USA free of the First Amendment?
As if the above wasn't damning enough, this degenerate uptalker is also a huge hypocrite. Days earlier, Stern worried aloud about "an outcome that (he) think(s) is really pretty dangerous for constitutional democracy." Why the change of heart? Could it have been the rolling cameras that allowed him the opportunity to score points against the Chief Justice?!
Examen Crucis
Sitting through this ordeal, I felt a switch flip. Every cell in my body suddenly became determined to reveal how compromised Stern is. But I needed to formulate an open-ended prompt that would let the proverbial cat out of the bag. And that's when it hit me: prod him about the Dobbs leak and the ensuing sham investigation.
For those unfamiliar with what happened in that case, here's a brief recap. In an unprecedented move, one or more insiders spoiled the entire draft of a Supreme Court decision. Making matters worse, the reporters who received this privileged information about the fate of Roe v Wade went ahead and published a breakdown of the upcoming reversal. Yet, even after an extensive probe that lasted eight months, not a finger was pointed, let alone punished. [Part of me suspects failure was the goal. I mean they brought in Michael Chertoff to head the independent review, for goodness' sake. Outside of Allen Dulles' addition to the Warren Commission, I can't remember a dodgier oversight choice.]
If my hunch was correct, Stern would demonstrate little concern for both the leak itself and the dead-end related to the culprit's identity. Not to toot my own horn, but those assumptions were fairly spot on. A variety of unsavory quips sprung from his lips, including, "the decision in Dobbs was not, like, a well-kept secret and a lot of us knew what that outcome was gonna be before that leak." The action that most stood out was his dismissive assertion that future leaks will be a regular occurrence, especially "details of the Justices' deliberations." He then figuratively thumbed his nose at the notion of the Supreme Court protecting sensitive internal matters, mocking how "it's so sacrosanct for (the Justices) to be able to have these discussions."
In Solidum
Does this sound like a human who cares about the judicial system, journalism, or ethics at all? The scary part is he's not the only professional in that troupe whose motives should be challenged. His mentor and fellow Amicus podcast host, Dahlia Lithwick, is no stranger to badmouthing the Court and penning columns that serve to destabilize it.
Another matriarch of the marble-columned structure on First Street NE, Nina Totenberg, has a history of not being completely upfront with her audience. Heck, even her own outlet, NPR, conceded as much. Yet, a major network still relished airing and, thus, elevating her downright ludicrous take on the SCOTUS leak.
Before we delve into what she said, let me advance a relevant tidbit. Conservative legal minds have raised speculation that a progressive Supreme Court clerk whose career revolved around reproductive rights might have utilized her journalist husband's shared-byline connection to break the Dobbs story. For the record, this assumption gained added credibility from the very outlet that posted the original exclusive. Reporting on the official analysis, Politico documented, "Some individuals admitted to investigators that they told their spouse or partner about the draft Dobbs opinion and the vote count, in violation of the Court's confidentiality rules."
[At the risk of appearing conspiratorial, if I was conducting a witch hunt where I didn't want to uncloak the witch but also didn't want to come across as wholly incompetent, I'd deliver this sort of vague nod that does everything but connect the dots.]
With the backdrop set, which of these concepts is more plausible:
Totenberg's contention that the "only (theory) that makes sense" is one where somebody spilled the beans due to fears that the right-leaning majority might not hold
The other possibility she mentioned involving "an outraged liberal clerk" executing the leak
In all seriousness, Nina's unfounded insistence that all other alternatives should, in essence, be rejected tells you all you need to know. The lady doth protest too much, methinks!
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Whether it's Totenberg brainwashing thousands via mixed media or Stern organically planting unhealthy seeds by the dozen, a common thread exists. These people are not reliable narrators.
They brazenly attempt to destroy the reputations of Justices they despise while secretly coveting their eventual demise. They don't bat an eyelash at leaks becoming a trend... nor do they seem interested in exploring the associated whodunit angles. They are biased parasites floating around the Court... willing to infect America's most venerable pillar to please their political masters.
Ultimately, the SCOTUS correspondent pool needs a thorough cleaning.
There should be a simple rule going forward: any reporter caught promoting the collapse of America should have his or her access automatically revoked. No ifs, ands, or buts. Otherwise, these antagonists will continue to jeopardize the Supreme Court and, by extension, the country.
Note: the post above may contain commentary reflecting the author's opinion.
This site does not render legal advice, nor does it intend to replace legal advice.
