Did conservative justicies leak or did liberal justices leak? As far as I know,

Did conservative justicies leak or did liberal justices leak?
As far as I know, we knew within twelve hours who leaked the abortion judgement, and who she was clerking for.
We always pay for people to come to our gatherings and proceedings. Justices aren’t paid enough to travel otherwise. Nor are academics or intellectuals – even minor think tank folk like me. All of us have appearance and speaking fees. Most of us will speak for free if we have our expenses covered in advance. The question isn’t if one benefitted, but whether there is a relationship between the benefit and a judgement: a quid pro quo. None of the justices have as far as I know engaged in a quid pro quo. They are aligned as constitutionalists vs populists and they are invited constitutionalist vs populist venues. If that requires buying a book I think that’s probably inappropriate because it is a quid-pro-quo even if not for the purpose of altering a judgement. But it’s not substantive enough. For example Obama’s book deal was pretty substantive and at least appeared to be a quid pro quo.

Now, should Sotomayor sit the bench? Of course not. She is an anti-constitutional activist happy to bypass the people and the legislature (‘violating the test of concurrency maintaining the sovereignty of the people over the state’), and it’s not clear she even holds to commonality in law (’empirical discovery of common judgements of irreciprocities by the lower courts’). I read her opinions as intellectually incompetent for the office she holds. At least with Justice Ginsberg she was just merely a populist and anti-constitutionalist activist, but she was intellectually capable -and all of us knew that.

Reply addressees: @KaivanShroff