These decisions you have to have confidentiality. i clerked for a lower court drilled in from day one what you discuss with your judge, what you learn about with the draft and what have you, this has to stay behind closed doors. it s a serious, serious breach of the public trust. ainsley: from your experience, how would this information get out because we talked to some clerks yesterday and they said you can t walk out with any papers and i doubt you are allowed to have cell phones when you are reading opinions. there is even a disconnect with the computers on when you draft opinions to the actual internet in chambers. so, it looks like the leaked draft was printed out and rescanned. somebody got a hard copy somehow. whether it s a clerk with a thumb drive that then printed it out at home? whether it s somebody in court staff or something. i don t know. but it looks like somebody gave a physical copy to politico. i
Senator alex padilla, of california, that as a harvard student, she once asked herself, do i belong here, can i make it in this environment, it s a lot of language we re hearing now about who belongs in spaces, and that includes the supreme court, or where you are, at harvard law school, places where there are relatively few black women who needs to see that people who look like judge jackson belong in those spaces. the woman who might follow her path, or is it the 47 senators who voted against her? who needs the proof that she s had to provide? it s both. i think it s the women who are trying to follow in her footsteps, as we look across the classroom, or even walking down the halls and seeing the portraits of professors that don t look like us, and we re reading opinions by people who did not live our lives, and don t reflect who we are. and you re wondering, am i meant to be here, is this the right place to me, and where does success lead? so i think part of it is, it is
Lawyer, mr. sherman, should have argued this for reasonable doubt, not that he says tommy did it. he says this was your job to say this isn t beyond a reasonable doubt because it just as easily could have been someone else. it s different than saying the judge thinks tommy did it. that s true although the way he marshalls the evidence against thomas skakel was certainly very unusual in my experience of reading opinions. and, look, thomas skakel has never been charged with anything. we certainly shouldn t point finger at him. but here we have this almost 40-year-old mystery. yes. and you know, it still gets more and more complicated. the victim s family deserves answers. they think they have them. we ll leave it on this. if it s going to be hard to retry a michael skakel, it would be almost impossible to try anybody else. i don t think there will be another trial in this case. jeffrey toobin, mr. colucci, thank you. kate, over to you. coming up next on new day,
Him back, that shows the court might be more focused on optics than we know. sounds like kennedy was focused on the constitution and i think the chief was focused on optics. every indication is from jan crawford, even more that that, people used to reading opinions can see how the four descenters were furious. i mentioned this on friday, i have no inside information but you could tell they are furious because they were they thought he was playing optics and he was. neil: you were on this before anyone. it struck me, what did you know? we only got indications of this ourselves in the last 24 hours, so my hat s off to you. but i want to know what you make you know how the court arrives at decisions. i can t imagine this is the first time it s concerned about appearances. it hasn t. this is why the court doesn t deserve the reverence it gets.