gives the impression
gives the impression?
GIVES THE IMPRESSION?
GIVES THE IMPRESSION?
this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2025
196 points (99.5% liked)
Law
727 readers
222 users here now
Discussion about legal topics, centered around United States
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
To be fair, they're interpreting US law, which favors moneyed interests.
The supreme court might as well wear robes with logos all over them like in NASCAR. What would be the difference at this point?
What would be the difference at this point?
Professional clarity and honesty.
Though, to be fair, if honesty were a requirement of being a Supreme Court Justice then Clarence Thomas would have been squarely out on his ass many, many years ago.
yeh, I need 50,000 shell companies to manage social media, online media, traditional media, us law, print media, branding, exhibitions, TV media, streaming media, free streaming media, physical media and ad campaigns.
Any anti-human when a "$10 limit for judge is sponsored by" law comes into effect.
Seriously, these judges are being bought for 500k per year. I have no sources on this. I have read news reports of politicians being bought for 10k to 100k. And, for me, 500k would massively change my life.
So 500k to lean to one side, 2 cases per year: I would be set.
The fact that these judgements affect 10k, 100k, 1m people? I would have issue with that, but if it was boiling a frog of minor judgements that don't affect anyone but slowly increased impact and payout... I might not notice.
Especially if they slipped in a few no-impact rulings with extremely high payout (this is the "jackpot" method for training dogs, name coined from - I presume - casinos and gambling).
And by the time I've realised I've been bought out by the bad guys: I would be planning for my exit, the aftermath and my family. I'd be demanding more, selling everything out, and making sure the laws I effect benefit my exit.
It's bought & sold. It's disgusting.
They should be held to higher standards and procedures, with ACTUAL consequences.
I hope - at one point - they were human, and cared, and that's why they were selected.
If they were in-human before they were selected, then the system is broken.
Considering they have the power to reverse or approve government decisions, seems like THEY are the ones people should be voting for and that the president is more of a guiding figure
Ma'am: you must be new here. Of course the SCOTUS is outright in league with monied interests. The only evidence you need is Corporate Personhood combined with Citizen's United.
About two and a half centuries late to this party, but I'm glad someone is saying it.
It gives that impression because that is exactly what it does, and it doesn’t even try to hide it. Expand the court and impeach the openly corrupt justices like Thomas and Alito. Barrett should be removed on grounds of having been placed illegitimately alone. The court is currently an untrustworthy, corrupt, anti-democratic, unconstitutional, illegitimate institution and needs to be fundamentally rebuilt.
The court has always favored monied interests
Duh.
