This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An investigation by the U.S. Supreme Court itself failed to identify the person who leaked a draft copy of last year’s decision overturning the faulty Roe v. Wade abortion mandate from 1973.
The decision, eventually released, allowed states to begin regulating abortion again, and triggered a wave of rage by pro-abortion radicals who have staged dozens and dozens of attacks on pro-life crisis pregnancy centers and churches.
There also have been unrelenting protests at the homes of the Supreme Court justices, despite a federal law banning it.
It was the Marshal of the Court who has assigned to investigate, and who was unable to name the culprit.
TRENDING: China’s spy balloon quietly traverses our skies – for the next few DAYS!
But longtime liberal and constitutional expert Alan Dershowitz say the U.S. House, now taking up the investigation, could help.
Dershowitz, professor emeritus at Harvard Law School, said, “There may yet be a way of finding out who did it – if the House Judiciary Committee is willing to play hardball with the press.”
He explained, “After the marshal’s report came out, Donald Trump offered the following advice on his social-media site: ‘Go to the reporter and ask who he/she is. If no answer is given, throw anyone in jail until an answer is given. . . . It won’t be long before the name of this slime will be revealed!'”
Dershowtiz noted the marshal’s office has no such authority, but the Judiciary Committee “could subpoena the Politico reporters who broke the story.”
“They would surely refuse to reveal the source, and the committee would have to petition a court to compel the disclosure. Under federal law, journalists don’t have an absolute privilege to keep their sources secret, as Judith Miller can attest. As a New York Times reporter, Ms. Miller spent 85 days in jail in 2005 for refusing to divulge a source in a leak investigation involving the identity of a former covert Central Intelligence Agency officer. Other journalists have been compelled to reveal their sources when courts decided the governmental interest in disclosure outweighed the journalistic interest in protection,” he explained.
He explained the public in general has a great interest in revelations about secrets involving official misconduct.
“But what legitimate objective was served by the disclosure of a draft Supreme Court opinion weeks before it was issued? I can think of several illegitimate goals, from improperly influencing justices to inflaming public opinion. After the leak but before Dobbs was decided, a man was arrested near Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s house and charged with attempted murder. He has pleaded not guilty,” Dershowitz said.
He said, “A fair weighing by a court would conclude that this is a close case. Since Congress has never enacted a shield law, neither side has a presumption in its favor. But the argument for compelled disclosure is strong because the source didn’t seek to expose any wrongdoing by the government, only the usual workings of the Supreme Court and a decision that would have become public within weeks. A court could conclude that the public’s right to know who the leaker was outweighs its interest in learning the outcome of a court ruling in advance.”
