Welcome back to the Dershow, a lot of developments over the weekend.

But I want to focus today on an institution I know a lot about, namely the United States Supreme Court.

I was a law clerk there back in 1963 to 1964.

I argued in front of it, I know most of the justices and have been friendly with some beyond just knowing them.

Steve Breyer has been a close friend for 50 years.

So it's an institution of which I'm very familiar in an institution, I generally admire, but it's in trouble.

It's in real trouble these days.

It's the criteria of support for it have gone down considerably.

It's still not as low as Congress or the presidency, but it's a lot lower than it used to be.

Some of it are self-inflicted wounds, some of them may be partisan.

We'll talk about all of those issues, but let me start with what's been in the headlines.

Obviously over the weekend several things have happened.

Number one, Justice Alito gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal in which he said,

I think I may know who was the leaker, who was the person, who leaked the draft opinion in the Barnes case,

the decision that Alito himself wrote, which overrule Roe versus Wade.

But he's not telling us.

He says, understandably.

I think I know who it is, but I don't have enough hard evidence to make any public disclosure.

Well, he's right not to do it because if he makes public disclosure and accuses somebody of being leaker and he's wrong, he could be sued for libel.

Yes, this Supreme Court justice can be sued for libel, not for writing opinions or saying anything from the bench, but if he were to tell the Wall Street Journal that Ms. X or Mr. X was the source of the leak and he was wrong.

He could be sued for libel, especially since Mr. and Mrs. Mr. and Ms. X are probably not public figures.

And so there wouldn't have to be malice proved, all that proves that what he said was wrong.

...