Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz suggested on the op-ed page of The Wall Street Journal, February 2, that the House Judiciary Committee (now that Republican Jim Jordan is in the chair) might, by means of its subpoena power, come up with the culprit who leaked Justice Sam Alito's draft opinion in the case that reversed Roe v. Wade, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.  The investigation had been turned over to the marshal of the Supreme Court, but she has been unable to find the leaker.

Mr. Dershowitz writes that "the Judiciary Committee could subpoena the Politico reporters who broke the story" but acknowledges that they might well prefer the martyrdom of jail for contempt to disclosing the leaker, who, Prof. Dershowitz suggests, might well have been motivated to influence, improperly, the justices — or sought to enrage the public.  (Certainly abortion advocates and the abortion-promoting media were enraged by the leaked draft.)

This is to suggest another alternative: vigorous speculation at patriotic websites, with copies to members of Congress — okay, Republican members of Congress.

Interested people might inquire: why doesn't the leaker step forward and announce, in effect, "I am Spartacus"?  If he was motivated by the noblest of principles, why does he remain in the shadows?  Members of the public might importune: leaker, why do you not declare, "I did it, am proud of doing it, would do it again, and now am prepared to suffer the consequences — whatever they may be, even if merely a book deal or an MSNBC gig as legal correspondent"?

The First Amendment, furthermore, would permit a more delicious thought: what if the leader was, or acted on the instruction of, a member of the High Court?  In this connection, logical speculation might first consider that the leaker is no longer on the Court.  Heavens, former Justice Breyer, or a trusted clerk of this former justice? 

Until the leaker steps forward, or is found out, no one in the Supreme Court community — not even a former justice, or current sitting justice, even the chief justice — should be beyond question.

And that is why the country must learn the identity of the leaker or leakers of the Dobbs draft opinion.  Until the leaker steps forward or is found out, the Supreme Court of the United States is merely a political institution among the political institutions of the country's capital.  And so, the legend on the court building must be understood to be Political Justice Under Law.  And what is "political justice," if not merely the "justice" of society's most powerful forces?  Certainly not "equal justice."

It is in the national interest that the leaker of the Dobbs draft be identified.  ASAP.

Image via Max Pixel.