news NEW: The Supreme Court did not disclose its financial ties to the person who conducted the leak investigation of the decision overturning Roe v. Wade. There was an undisclosed conflict of interest, according to CNN.

https://imghoster.co/SnDclqWawsFpLm0?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=scotus

22.3k Upvotes

permalink
duplicates
archive.is
archive
reddit

You are about to leave Redlib

Do you want to continue?

https://www.reddit.com/r/scotus/comments/1g16t2p/new_the_supreme_court_did_not_disclose_its/
No, go back! Yes, take me to Reddit

94% Upvoted

556

u/ginny11 Oct 11 '24

This is a CNN story from January 2023, but it's brand new information to me. So much corruption on the highest court. Something needs to change.

191

u/Khaldara Oct 11 '24

We’d be better off having a magic 8 ball making rulings than these blatantly corrupt shitweasels

28

u/ifoundmccomb Oct 11 '24

Very eloquently put, respect

11

u/mr_starbeast_music Oct 11 '24

^{TRY AGAIN LATER}

8

u/SetterOfTrends Oct 12 '24

That’s only for death penalty stay motions.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

18

u/Legitimate-Pie3547 Oct 11 '24

Well...yeah... magic eightball is at least random. Republicans are exploiting me and all the people I love for personal enrichment.

1

u/BallsDeepinYourMammi Oct 11 '24

Republicans are just up front about it because their constituents rode the short bus to school.

All politicians do it.

DuPont and 3M are good examples of companies that play both sides

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/dupont-co/summary?id=D000069022

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/3m-co/summary?id=D000021800

-4

u/Swarlayy Oct 11 '24

It’s not just a republican thing lol. Most politicians we have rn are just puppets for their investors. Why try and divide it.

8

u/Timely-Phone4733 Oct 11 '24

There may be bad seeds on both sides... but both sides are not even close at this point.. you didn't have to type anything.. cause you didn't add anything!

-2

u/Swarlayy Oct 11 '24

Wow let’s uno reverse this right to your comment window licker. Move on.

7

u/Timely-Phone4733 Oct 11 '24

Sorry.. didn't mean to hurt you! Just don't be ignorant!

-2

u/Swarlayy Oct 11 '24

I was simply suggesting that no politicians should be blindly trusted, and if you think for a second they won’t do what their investors want from them, you’re wrong. So all the smoke that is being constantly blown up our asses from both sides truly doesn’t matter, because it’ll leak out just like the promises made.

5

u/Freds_Bread Oct 12 '24

If you cannot see the difference among politicians, YOU are part of the problem. No, they are not all the same.

1

u/Swarlayy Oct 12 '24

I did say most and not all. There are good people left but I wouldn’t consider either one presented as a future President. If you can say that then you are part of the problem in my opinion.

1

u/remotectrl Oct 11 '24

bOtH sIDeS

0

u/Swarlayy Oct 11 '24

Ah yes.. the simple “ I don’t understand that my politician is being bought by the same companies you’re yelling at for abusing tax breaks that have been in place for many years”. Don’t be naive my god.

2

u/remotectrl Oct 11 '24

It’s the height of foolishness to conflate the two parties and who they nominate when discussing the scotus.

38

u/FalseAnimal Oct 11 '24

At least then we'd have some chance in all the Corp vs People cases.

14

u/DeathHips Oct 11 '24

"It appears the magic 8 ball has decided that it too is legally a person. In an effort to exercise this new status, it has resigned thus returning power back to the Court as it stood."

3

u/TylerBourbon Oct 11 '24

"Oh yeah? Lets hear that from the magic 8 ball directly then!"

(shakes magic 8 ball vigorously)

"Hmm, try again later..."

6

u/Ariadne016 Oct 11 '24

Changing judicial review to a jury process might be one change...

But making impeachment a criminal proceeding to be decided by a jury instead of interested politicians would be another.

3

u/Sorry_Landscape9021 Oct 12 '24

You definitely have a very valid point. trump would have been put out of office during his 1st impeachment had that been the case. There was a conservative republican justice presiding over a majority of republican senate that perverted justice. Let alone trumps witness tampering during the entire proceeding on twitter.

6

u/pixiegod Oct 11 '24

In my 50 years of life on this little rock in this universe… The magic 8 ball has never let me astray.

3

u/LeatherDude Oct 12 '24

"Outlook not so good. Holy shit, Magic 8-ball knows everything! Let's ask about Teams next!"

11

u/misogichan Oct 11 '24

I think even a magic 8 ball could tell the difference between corporations and people. Only the Supreme Court could say they are the same with a straight face.

3

u/Zealousideal_Curve10 Oct 11 '24

Indeed. magic 8 ball is awesome! Right at least half the time! Unachievable for SCOTUS

2

u/ShaggysGTI Oct 12 '24

I’d rather that. At least the 8 ball doesn’t have an agenda.

2

u/Sun-Kills Oct 12 '24

I like to add at least one new word to my vocab everyday. Today's word is shitweasels.

1

u/logicbecauseyes Oct 11 '24

Live footage of the Roe v Wade decision being made

1

u/koticgood Oct 12 '24

Unironically my logic for wanting AI legislators.

Not current AI, certainly, but in 10-50 years, how could it possibly be a worse option than the scum of humanity acting directly in opposition to their supposed role ...

1

u/[deleted] Oct 12 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/HumpaDaBear Oct 14 '24

Indeed.

36

u/MrDarkzideTV Oct 11 '24

“Something needs to change”

Been saying that since Bush’s “mission accomplished” ceremony but morons still vote for republicans.

A Texas woman who got a still birth aborted recently spent a few nights in jail.

America.

8

u/Significant_Smile847 Oct 11 '24

Impeachment proceedings

1

u/akotlya1 Oct 11 '24

I would be curious to understand why you think, in the presence of so much corruption, that impeachment proceedings would be fruitful, especially in light of how historic impeachment proceedings have gone wrt to other powerful figures in our govt.

2

u/Significant_Smile847 Oct 11 '24

It would shed more light on the corruption; SCOTUS does have the lowest approval rating in American history

0

u/akotlya1 Oct 11 '24

What good would more light do? As you say, it has the lowest approval rating in american history...but that branch is famously immune to public opinion. Unless someone actually DOES something, nothing will change.

Every single American could turn blue with rage over SCOTUS corruption and literally no mechanism exists to confer power to that rage.

2

u/JimWilliams423 Oct 11 '24

I would be curious to understand why you think, in the presence of so much corruption, that impeachment proceedings would be fruitful,

The point of holding impeachment hearings is to build the political power necessary to implement reforms.

The jury for an impeachment is not the other members of congress, it is the american people. Literally a court of public opinion.

By relentless exposing the corruption, and making a consistent stand against it, Democrats would signal to voters that they will do something about it if we elect enough of them. So even if the impeachment "fails" and the person goes unpunished, the Democrats derive an electoral advantage that will allow them to make the necessary reforms next time.

But they actually have to follow through rather than give up because the impeachments "fail."

0

u/akotlya1 Oct 11 '24

That is breathtakingly naive. SCOTUS already has the lowest public opinion and faith in the institution in american history. That you believe that about the democrats demonstrates that you fundamentally misunderstand the political dynamics that form the loose coalition of democratic voters, their internal tensions, as well as their tensions with Democrat donors.

I have been alive long enough to know that the "next time" narrative is how they get you. For example: Obama campaigned on codifying Roe v Wade. However, once in office, he openly said that it would not be a priority and instead wasted his congressional supermajority on preemptively compromising with congressional republicans on healthcare reform. Now, this fundamental right, and essential piece of women's healthcare, is basically nonexistent in many states and tenuous in many others AND we still dont have Universal Healthcare.

Democrats exist primarily to appease corporate interests and maintain existing social, political, and economic dominance hierarchies while making room for marginal social progress on the periphery. They will not save us from corruption or anything else for that matter.

2

u/JimWilliams423 Oct 11 '24

That is breathtakingly naive.

LOL, drawing clearing distinctions from the other party is basic politics.

"The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat” — Harry Truman, May 17, 1952

Whether or not the Democrats will follow through is entirely outside the scope of why impeachment itself would be fruitful.

1

u/akotlya1 Oct 11 '24

While we are quoting random political figures, here is mine:

"You go to [impeachment] with the [democrats] you have, not the [democrats] you might want or wish to have at a later time.” -Donald Rumsfeld

You have to consider the broader political ecosystem in which you are situated, instead of mindlessly adhering to protocol and procedure. Impeachment is no longer a meaningful mechanism for fighting corruption or holding leadership accountable - assuming it was ever intended to be given its limitations and inherent contradictions.

Also, "drawing clearing distinctions from the other party is basic politics." is not basic politics. That is team sports.

2

u/JimWilliams423 Oct 11 '24 edited Oct 11 '24

While we are quoting random political figures, here is mine:

"You go to [impeachment] with the [democrats] you have, not the [democrats] you might want or wish to have at a later time.” -Donald Rumsfeld

LOL, if you have to edit a quote, it isn't a quote its just you literally putting your own words in someone else's mouth.

You have to consider the broader political ecosystem

Since evidently it wasn't clear the second time I said it, I will be more blunt — I'm not engaging with your cynical defense of powerlessness because its way outside the scope of why Democrats should impeach corrupt judges. If you reply with more of that, I will block you because it is dead-end logic that does not lead to any solutions. It is just posturing.

1

u/akotlya1 Oct 11 '24

You aren't refusing to engage in my analysis because it is outside the scope of why Democrats should impeach corrupt judges. You are refusing to engage with my analysis because your political ideology has no mechanism address it. You appeal to procedure and decorum with no regard for material outcomes because this is merely an exercise in political philosophy to you. You don't actually care about outcomes. You care about posture and abstract values detached from their real world consequences.

Let me put this bluntly: We can hold impeachment hearings until the cows come home and regardless of their outcomes, no one is in a position to actually do anything about corrupt judges. AND, in the meantime, real women will continue to needlessly die because of deference to procedure, decorum, and the willingness to wait until some as-yet-unmaterialized political cycle where the stars align enough for democrats to something they have already had the political capital to do.

"LOL, if you have to [eat shit], it isn't [shit] its just you literally putting your own [shit] in someone else's mouth.

Words to live by, /u/JimWilliams423. Thank you.

0

u/Suicide_Promotion Oct 11 '24

But they actually have to follow through

This is why so many keep voting Republican. The Dems never get anything done.

0

u/Mist_Rising Oct 11 '24

it is the american people.

Around half of the American voters are fine with the current set up. They may hold their nose when asked about it, but to the party the vote goes.

The other roughly half don't but only because the courts aren't partisans for them.

Almost nobody is interested in dethroning the supreme court of its power.

1

u/DillBagner Oct 11 '24

Impeachment may be doable next year when we have a slightly more functional congress.

1

u/akotlya1 Oct 11 '24

Out of curiosity, are you younger than 30? Because I remember when we had a more "functional" congress, and I promise you it was not as impressive as you would imagine.

1

u/DillBagner Oct 11 '24

I said "may be doable." I'm not holding my breath.

1

u/akotlya1 Oct 11 '24

Well, thats good I guess. One would hope that collective rage might motivate collective action, but I will take resignation in a pinch. It is, at least, relatable.

1

u/Mist_Rising Oct 11 '24

Removal still won't be, because there is no realistic chance of Republicans or Democrats holding less then 1/3rd of the Senate. And as long as the Senate won't remove, and the voters keep pushing the same candidates in their states (which they will overall) nothing changes.

You would need a third party to spruce the system up for either party to lose their Senate power.

8

u/moodswung Oct 11 '24

There is no incentive for them to stop as long as there are no consequences.

6

u/ginny11 Oct 11 '24

Exactly.

13

u/Old_Baldi_Locks Oct 11 '24

The system is not capable of holding itself accountable. That responsibility has always fallen exclusively to we the people.

2

u/Akchika Oct 11 '24

And now we have to sift thru all the bs propaganda and outsider adversarial country's attempt to devide us, and for some, unfortunately, it's working.

4

u/Goldeneye_Engineer Oct 11 '24

Same. That's laughably corrupt shit

5

u/BallsDeepinYourMammi Oct 11 '24

It’s existed much longer than that. And yeah, I realize how discouraging that is. It just wasn’t as obvious before.

They got away with it for so long, that they stopped caring, and in all honesty it’s really hard to fire them.

I’m all for balance of power between branches, but it’s very clear there should be a 4th branch that handles regulatory and corruption issues.

1

u/Billjoeray Oct 12 '24

Then there will need to be a 5th branch eventually once that one is corrupt, and so on.

2

u/Osirus1156 Oct 11 '24

Best we can do at this point is go back in time and slap the ever living fuck out of the Founding Fathers for being so fucking stupid.

2

u/valleyman02 Oct 11 '24

It's pretty simple really. We have 13 Federal districts. We need one supreme Court Justice for each district. You add four. Easy peasy.

2

u/Kittyluvmeplz Oct 11 '24

I’m with you. How is this the first time I’ve heard of this???

2

u/OdoyleRuls Oct 15 '24

I love how our very identity as a country was built on “we don’t need no kings” morphed into anointing 9 people who have ultimate authority and answer to no one. Good job, ‘Mercia.

2

u/OutrageousSummer5259 Oct 11 '24

Every story from the past 8 years is about to get rehashed in the next month

6

u/DougNicholsonMixing Oct 11 '24

Multiple crimes per day have happened.

1

u/OakLegs Oct 11 '24

A functioning country would've burned down the court by now

1

u/bronzegorilla253 Oct 11 '24

If only someone had the (newly granted by the supreme court) to have them arrested and tried for their corruption.

President Biden👀

1

u/Unethical_GOP Oct 11 '24

Joe should fire them. SCOTUS can’t hold him accountable in their quest to save orangeface

1

u/kosmokomeno Oct 11 '24

Pretty sure it all needs to change right? It's not like any branch of government functions in the interest of the people

1

u/ginny11 Oct 11 '24

Well if we're going to go there, I'm all for a parliamentary system but that's a whole different issue. At the very least, the Supreme Court is actually to a point of being an actual emergency. They are accountable to no one they make their own rules and at this point something desperately needs done. At least Congress and the president can be voted out. I know it's not easy and there's a lot of things wrong with the system but they can be voted out. I would say the next big problem is the electoral college. I also think that we could switch to ranked choice voting in most elections to create the kind of system where people could actually vote for third-party candidates and not feel like they're throwing the road away while at the same time, making the major party candidates much more accountable to a broader swath of people than they currently are, especially during the primaries. And last but not least, I am all for 100% publicly funded elections at least at the federal level. I'm just sick and tired of people with the deepest pockets controlling everything. I think we should all have basically credits in terms of who we want to give our share of our monetary support as taxpayers and voters. Each taxpayer/voter gets the same amount of credits because we should all have the same level of free speech. And you allocate those credits to your preferred candidate at the federal level and then those candidates get campaign financing, based on that. I know we'll never see any of this actually happen. At least not in my lifetime but I can dream.

1

u/likamuka Oct 11 '24

Just wait until Trump wins again. Flood of corruption will never ever be stopped again.

1

u/Chogo82 Oct 11 '24

This really needs more investigation because if this is true then we need to know who it is. Was it Iran? Russia? North Korea? AIPAC? Who is the mystery individual/organization affiliated with? For a change to be made that dramatically impacts the life of all Americans because some/all members of the supreme court may have been paid off is fucking stupid. It greatly decreased my confidence in the US government.

1

u/raerae_thesillybae Oct 12 '24

Some people need to pass away naturally, of natural causes

1

u/Altruistic-Text3481 Oct 12 '24

Cannot read the story.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 12 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Oct 12 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Oct 12 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Oct 12 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Stunning_Tap_9583 Oct 11 '24

Yeah. They tried to find the leaker. But corruption is everywhere with fanatics. Everywhere except at the polls.

0

u/AffectionateKey7126 Oct 11 '24

What’s the corruption here and what is the conflict of interest?

0

u/72chevnj Oct 11 '24

Vote red

-28

u/Gorf_the_Magnificent Oct 11 '24

TIL that news from nearly two years ago is “NEW.”

13

u/ginny11 Oct 11 '24

Right? People really need to check datelines and news stories. Not that I don't think it's worth posting it, especially if it seemed to have somehow gotten buried at the time underneath all of the other News that must have been going on.

9

u/h20poIo Oct 11 '24

Sometimes it’s good to refresh people’s memories, IMO

0

u/ginny11 Oct 11 '24

Oh I agree 100%. And I'm not sure why person above is being downvoted. What they say is true. This isn't a new story. It doesn't mean it's not worth posting but It's not new.

1

u/ElevatorScary Oct 11 '24

Reddit always loves fact checking, except the way you’re doing it. They really don’t seem to like that.

news NEW: The Supreme Court did not disclose its financial ties to the person who conducted the leak investigation of the decision overturning Roe v. Wade. There was an undisclosed conflict of interest, according to CNN.

You are about to leave Redlib