The GOP & the billionaires who fund them learned their lesson. Never again would they allow a rightwing justice to stray beyond the rigid ideological boundaries set at that justices’ confirmation…
The Supremes may now be the most corrupt branch of the Federal Government and that's saying something! I saw this all the time in corporate law; the attorneys on a deal made good $ but didn't make the $ that the players made. $3-5 million a year is about right for a legitimate 'white shoe' law firm senior partner in NYC (maybe a few million more for the highest partners). In 2008 when everyone went under, the lawyers were scrambling to get paid while Cerberus, et al. made out with billions. So the lawyers get jealous; they want the billionaire lifestyle. Skiing in Gstaad, not Vail (really! I knew a senior partner who went to the Swiss Alps every year for skiing). They get in on the deals even though it's against our code of professional responsibility. How on earth did that scumbag from Georgia who was one of Trump's impeachment attorneys get paid $68 MILLION over a few years? He's a crook, that's how. Just like Scalia, Thomas, Alito....
Take a small category of elite, powerful people - say, Republican mega-donors who did not like trump. Then of that category, limit it to those who funded opposition research to defeat trump's nomination, then of those folks limit it further to only those who spoke out strongly against trump calling him idiotic or some such names.
Then, of whoever is left in this category of the trump-bashing, trump opposed gop donors, limit it further only to:
- those who received an invitation to dine personally with trump in the White House during his first year of office.
And, alas, we are left with only one Republican donor. His name is Paul Singer.
Today we have SOME lefty media that has mentioned Singer. Perhaps this will become a trend. There's SO MUCH MORE to say.
In three years, it will be the 30th anniversary of the nsmia law, enacted in '96 and signed by President Clinton, which had such an enormous impact on the economy, politics, everything in this country, that it's just impossible to underestimate it when we combine the change with citizens united. Result? we have hedge fund magnates basically running the country for the last decade.
So we barely heard about who was funding Ted Cruz when he was going around the country talking about how much of a problem he had with "New York values." Of course it was a New York billionaire named Robert Mercer!
Many Harvard people like Tom Cotton, who serve from states like Arkansas they also have a connection to people that went to Harvard like Paul Singer.
But without jumping ahead of myself, too much, I'm going to point out one thing that is of critical importance for people to know at this point. Paul singer was an attorney before he became one of the most notorious of all hedge fund operators. Paul singer went to Harvard law school and worked at Fried, Frank. Paul understands the importance of law to everything involving the economy, business and related political aspects , and knows how to manipulate and mold these things better than just about anybody on this planet.
One of the great great features of hedge funds for these folks, and the lack of hedge fund regulation, for these billionaires is their ability to hide, an ability not to serve on public boards if they don't want to, the ability to stay behind the scenes, and manipulate politics, and manipulate the economy and manipulate large public companies.
When Jack Dorsey stepped down from Twitter, there were all kinds of media accounts - all focused on Jack Dorsey. Nobody I am aware in the media focused on the fact that it was actually Paul singer's firm that had invested in twitter, got a seat on its board, and then helped orchestrate the end of Dorsey.
There's so much more to say about all this, but we're going to end here today. The fact that this major publicity about the real world of hedge fund power has now come out before the public is quite an important thing.
"The support of Singer, then, is by itself worth much to Rubio. But if history repeats itself, Singer’s money could be something of a magnet, reaping even greater returns: Several other hedge funders tend to gravitate to the same candidates and causes he backs. That could be due to Singer’s influence among donors — or maybe the billionaire just knows how to pick ’em."
That chart doesn't skim the surface even. Singer is mega-donor and mega-connected Harvard law alum. Like "sit down and talk to justice Kennedy over lunch before he writes a decision" mega-connected. He bankrolled Tom cotton, Marco Rubio, many others. The most important thing to understand is he is brilliant legal strategist. Kicking Dorsey out of twitter was easy, bringing a country like Argentina to its knees in us federal court might have taken more planning. There is a huge connection between law and finance that goes almost completely uncovered by mainstream and lefty media, which means it goes almost unnoticed. People that follow investment and finance fields (and if they are particularly aware of the hedge fund and private funds industry) or who follow specialized legal developments , are both much more well-versed about past events and better understand the practices of a titan like singer.
On oct 11, 2015 nyt published a report in the early money going into 2016 race. One million dollars or more donors to super pacs (a year before election) were researched and it was observed:
- about 400 families account for an enormous portion of all super pac money;
- the nouvelle rich, primarily from fracking and hedge funds- create a newer cast of characters than typically in us history, where great family wealth traditionally dominated the largest donors. Now, it's "new rich" like Paul Singer who dominate.
Open secrets has several articles and research tools where you can see millions upon millions of singer's right wing donations, but also an article in which it explains that the network of donors will usually pile on after singer.
THAT is influence and THAT is power.
When reviewing lists of the largest donors note that in some years these donors intentionally withhold in order to assert more influence, keep candidates in line.
These justices need to be impeached!!! At the very least, moving forward, they need to recuse themselves from cases involving their “friends”. Better yet, pay their own way when they vacation with their billionaire “friends”.
There has got to be someone out there who heard these billionaires discussing their intentions to “bribe” these judges. We know what is happening, but that would show intent. Maybe then it could be prosecuted.
Thank you for once again explaining a deeper connection to reality. I also really appreciate the historical through-line. Truth fits together so well. Although, the picture painted is not always pretty. Ruthie B
Even though it's not mandatory to be a lawyer or judge to be on SCOTUS, most are. Law must have had incredible meaning in some of the most significant years of their lives. We all get caught-up in the rigors of family, politics, and just being busy. As we age and mellow, some reflect on their roots.
The phrase "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW" is literally carved into the Supreme Court facade. That would be one of the constant reminders that make them understand the goal and the weight of their actions. Being surrounded by clerks and people that look up to them would be another. A mentally healthy person is going to understand so much more after observing history in the making and learning more about people in their lifetime.
Damaged people with growing resentments are easy marks. They are not reflecting or focusing on their love of the law or justice. Weak. Greedy. Pathetic.
I watched Joshua Kaplan from ProPublica on C-SPAN. He spoke to judges and they were appalled about what they were seeing concerning the Justices. They won't even accept lunch from lawyers that appear before them. They also explained recusal by asking the reporter if he would like to appear before a judge that goes on vacation with the person suing him.
The hypothesis as presented is completely tenable and checks out in terms of the historical record. I would not quibble except to say that there has been a tectonic shift in the reactionary direction from more sensible and sane conservatism which has affected the candidates for offices and the Supreme Court, making them less open to argument and more heavily weighted toward authoritarianism, religious extremism, elitism, power-seeking, and ethnocentrism or xenophobic sentimentality. I have an article from about 1995 by a law professor from UNLV named Henderson which traces the trend of the "conservatives" on the high court radically toward authoritarianism (which I could locate with a little effort). These people see themselves as special, superior, privileged, and more competent, so it makes perfect sense that they should have all the perks and favors and that billionaires would want to share their company and extend generous offers of trips and vacations with them. The influence starts with grades and attention is school and in most cases now in circles which have religion, piety, and sanctimony at the center. Power and privilege are in their culture and they have no reason to question it or to bother to think consciously about it. Did I mention that authoritarianism's influence starts with schools which are necessarily hierarchical by "virtue" of their establishment and maintenance under the law?
Robert, I honed in on a word in your comment and completely agree with it. Reactionary. Those calling themselves conservative now are actually reactionaries pulling the country backwards. I wrote a post about it on my own Substack called "Conservative or Reactionary?" which notes some of the things you've identified.
Although I agree with Thom's post, I wonder if there is an additional facet to the observed liberal drift of past Justices confirmed as conservatives. Political conservatives generally claim to be for less government intrusion in personal lives and decisions. It seems that from Nixon and Reagan on, the conservative cause included restrictions on personal decisons that don't hew to whatever interpretation the religious base sees as Judeo-Christian. It's now as much, if not more, socially conservative than politically so. I wonder if it isn't so much that the judges mentioned got more liberal but because this redefinition to promote infringement on socially liberal individual choices is not truly politically conservative but socially conservative. Now that those have become mingled, the golden handcuffs become necessary for all the purposes Thom outlined to keep them agreeable to write decisions affecting individual choice and freedom. This occurs while dragging the country backwards to a time of robber barons and children dispatched to clean dust from under running looms.
The problem as I see it is that the people who identify as conservative have no grounding in or understanding of bona fide conservative thinking, tradition, philosophy, or logic. They have an extremely truncated conception of what conservatism means and become fixated on simplistic ideas and slogans, which may or may not represent an ideology that has at least some degree of rational basis. They find the conservative penchant for caution too attractive because they harbor extreme uncertainty and fear. Religious faith assuages that irrational fear. They are drawn like moths to self-serving modalities and the institutions or organizations which reinforce attitudes aligned with protecting one’s interests, defending oneself from malice, “bad people”, strangers, and exploitation. “Free market fundamentalism”, predatory capitalism, oligarchy, Christian nationalism, bigotry, and xenophobia, etc., all fit in perfectly with their myopic vision of life and people, and perceiving those who are outside their insular group must be seen as enemies who threaten their precarious position. The greater focus on social issues merely reflects the expansion into more areas as they become more extreme and intolerant and their failure to comprehend the nuances of political controversies.. Birds of a feather need each other to boost their egos and allay their haunting insecurities.
Corruption of the congress and Supreme Court involves money and a lot of it, but not just that - a coordinated network of donors pooling and playing off their enormous resources (And also, the Largest political donation from Exxon went to biden).
I've referred to Kagan's rejection of lox & bagels more than once. Her example reflects the 18th century English Common Law meaning of bribery and is the meaning of Bribery in the Constitution. Nonetheless in 2017 McDonnell Kagan joined in the unanimous ruling that accepting 200k$ of gifts was just dandy so long as you were not so addlepated as to give quid pro quo. Why? Stare Decisis. 'Honest' judges respect Precedents created by Federalist Society terrorists intent on creating a fascist state. That single precedent neuters the Constitutional meaning of bribery. Hence all the Sound and Fury in Congress and Media (including your arguments Thom) signifies nothing. Nothing more than Alito's public embarrassment in a snappish reply - insulting his gracious host.
Now there are rules that apply to all Federal judges - but are not enforced on the fracking Supremes for wont of a higher Court (or a modicum of Congressional initiative). This is detailed in https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/03/time-for-supreme-court-to-adopt-ethics-rules/ So when Kavanaugh was elevated, the 80 or so Ethics Violations that he had accrued in his Circuit Court time - vanished.
Astonishingly the wonton destruction of the basis of representative democracy, the control of political bribery, is widely recognized - e.g. Zephyr Teachout notes that Quid Pro Quo bribery arose in mid 20th century contract law - yet No Recourse is even considered.
Is that how we let the world end? For that is the Clear and Present danger as we rush into the intersection of fracking corporate fascism and Climate Collapse induced by the frackers. [Briefly: State and Corporate Fascism are distinct realizations encompassed in Mussolini's succinct definition of fascism as the merger of State and corporate power. I see the planned 2024 election as a contest between Corp. Fascism represented by the appeaser/collaborator Biden and the folks who would be Fuhrer. Disruption of the DNC plan is essential.]
The only obligation the Supreme Court is bound by is their Oath to the Constitution. That is more than enough. Just as surely as Article 3 Section 1 asserts that "...Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour..." it asserts the contrapositive "...Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall lose their Offices by bad Behaviour..."
All capitalist Nations end with the robber barons in charge. Only a socialist Nation can be civilized and stand the test of time. That is why the robber barons don't like the poor to think rationally and always oppose education while keeping them drunk on religion. As the supreme Court justices are being groomed with money, so have the masses been since world war II. We have the truth on our side and God as well. We are like David and Goliath. Hopefully if we can spread the truth and enlighten the ignorant, we can defeat them with 1/10 of the money they spend. We need some support from benevolent billionaires if there are any, to get started. With all the creative talent the left has, surely we could make some 30 second commercials educating the trumpsters what a dictatorship is. And asking for donations to keep the commercials going. So if we start out small, it could mushroom into quite a project and unite all the godly people, even if they don't believe there is a God. Those antenna TV channels must be reasonably priced, God knows there is constant lawyer commercials and paid products commercials. Advertising during the Western TV shows and movies, could reach a lot of right wingers who can't afford cable.
1. The likelihood of a benevolent billionaire is as likely as a blind marksman.
2. You lost me at God being on our side. First that presupposes a god, if so then which one, so many to choose from, But in your face evidence is that this supposedly omnescient, omnipresent beneficial god is not on our side, but on the side of evil, like Putin, Xi, Trump, the Republican party and the millionaire/billionaires.
I don't have the luxury of engaging in fantasy or wishful thinking. We have to help ourselves, by forming a no nonsense, no surrender, unbribeable alliance and lots of luck with the latter.
If one truth has been revealed by history, and by This excellent essay by Thom, is that everyone has a price and the billionaires have learned to do it with Golden Handcuffs.
When I joined AA back in 89, one of the requirements was that we have a higher power. I chose the ceiling fan as my higher power. Setting aside the religious stuff like "The Lord's Prayer" I found sharing with a community of alcoholics was very helpful, and instead of going to a bar or buying a case of beer, I would go to a meeting, and then more meetings, until the craving left me. And when I felt like breaking sobriety I would call on my sponsor, and they would talk me off the cliff. I did the same for others when I became a sponsor.
As regards energy as god. Why not, it is indestructible always is, just changes form to matter and then back to energy. It is omnipresent, but not omniscient , and not all powerful, it doesn't give a shit, so praying to it is a waste of time.
As an aside. I was watching NatGeo episode about the Himalayan honey bees, they hived and reproduced in the Himalayas and in summer they would migrate down the Indus Valley, the hive would stop and rest on the very same overhang or branch as the previous years migration, yet the migration was led by scouts that were born AFTER the previous years migration. There are many examples of such .
Then I saw an episode about Zombie ants, it seems there are Zombie beetles and other insects as well. the actor is a ophiocordycepts unilateralls, a fungus which has no eyes muscles, skeletal structure until it drops on an insect, it then invades the insect and takes over the insects brain, and uses it to see and manipulate the insect, such that a spore can, using the insects sense and motor organs have the corpus climb a twig or leaf, sink in their mandibles, consume the insect from the inside out and when ready, bloom and drop more spore on the ant trail to infect other ants or insects. I've seen videos of lifeless beetles that were infected, laying on their back, dead as a door nail and mostly empty, flailing their legs and trying to perambulate.
That made me ponder the possibility that there was a creator after all, a microscipic creator, and that while plants and animals evolve. They change in response to changes in the environment, be it the gravitational field, climate, and also in response to changes in the host, prey or predator.
When a prey has "evolved" defenses against a predator, the predator also evolves abilities to catch the prey. And vice versa, it is an arms race. Same with vegetation, as the environment changes flora also changes, or goes extinct.
So what is this microscopic creator, Prions?.mitochondia , genes? A cheetah catches a Thompson's gazelle, the gazelle dies, but not this"prion" or mitochondria, or whatever, there is an information exchange, and based on the info conveyed by the gazelle's "prions", the cheetahs genes are tweaked.
In the Galapagos there is a flower which has a long stem, the pollen of which can only be reached by a bird with a long beak. There is a finch, that lives only on the Galapagos .
So what drove a flower to evolve such a long stem, and what drove the finch to alter its
genetic structure as to grow long beaks..
Something was at work, but frankly science can't come up with the answers or is afraid to, because they have no answer within the realm of the current orthodoxy.
Mssrs Taylor and Wegener, even Tesla, had the same problem, with T & W authored the continental drift period, they were harassed by the establishment, called fakirs, cranks,kooks, until the theory of plate tectonics surfaced, but you will not find any geology text books, that offer an apology to T & W
Everything we think and do is right or wrong, moral are immoral, good or evil, negative or positive. To believe anything as the absolute truth that can't be proven is evil. Religious faith is evil. I am in agnostic who leans strongly towards there being no God. It is important to keep an open mind, just in case, truth and or energy or anything else, is God. I bet on the whole roulette wheel, not just one slot . The odds are way against those with closed minds and bet on one slot. Plus close mines quit learning. I just expect the people who claim to serve God to be virtuous not parasitic. In my opinion, the evil parasite serve Satan. The only thing capable of waking these Trump loving zombies up is the truth that they are being manipulated by the New world order globalists to be their slaves. I roughly figure about $400,000 would be needed to start up a commercial TV blitz aimed at the Republicans, and if asking for donations at the end didn't work, then it would be a failure. I suspect there are millions of liberals that would donate to fund these anti-fascist commercials who do not want to listen to politics for hours. I enjoy that too much and I need to get more done around here. America has 5.3 million millionaires and $770 billionaires approximately. If none of them are capable or have no desire or are afraid to gamble $400,000, I guess America and democracy and the human race are not worth saving. The American billionaires will find out that paying taxes is cheaper than paying protection money.
You sound like you are making Pascal's wager, hedging bets against an afterlife.
My father in law was one such, he attended church as often as he could. When thoroughly questioned, his answer was simply that of Pascal's wager.
U told him that if there was an omnescient god, then that god would know that he was insincere and only hedging his bets that he would go to the sky when he died.
I use sky, because that is what it is called in Latin and Romance languages. Do people really believe that there are disembodied people floating around in the sky? If so then they must be thoroughly and totally disturbed with all of the air traffic and parachutists, flying and falling through their domain.
Of course the notion that the dead went on in the sky was salable until man learned to fly.
And then it became a ridiculous idea, which the church (churches) obfuscated by equating the sky to some other dimensional realm, with claiming another dimension, a realm that exists in the mind of believers and no where else.
Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, was aware that man could now soar into heaven, on balloons, and thus modified heaven to be planets and stars, and each of his disciples would have their own.
Ok but welcome to America we hope you like it here. If you don't enjoy organized religion (like 3/4 of us) there's also places like the kabbala center in LA where you can experience Jewish mysticism, and maybe even meet Madonna. Also many other cults - so much to choose from!
There's a new religiousity. Even the non-practicing types believe in all kinds of false idols, especially technology. But whether American zest for religiosity morphs into a zest for something else, it still has to be accounted for in any political strategy that American electorate is more religious or has more religious inclinations than (for example) in western Europe, supposedly.
Those that claim to serve a god are frauds. They serve themselves using a sock puppet they call Yah, Al Ilah, Krshna, god or whatever. It is easier than actually doing hard work for a living.
My Uncle was a Southern Baptist minister. A real rake, a sponge who lived off the community, and a misogynistic,homophobic, racist as well. I lived under his roof, actually the shotgun (slave) cabin that he owned that was about 30 feet from his house, which was the residence of his parents, my grandparents with whom I lived.
He bragged about how little he earned, about the same monthly allowance as Mao Tse Tung.
And like Mao, his cup runneth over, he had free car,free gas, free insurance, toured the congregation every day, scheduling to arrive at Dinner or Supper. On his birthday he was showered with gifts as was Christmas. Basically his salary was discretionary money, he used to buy more property, the house bordering his.
He was a scheming, conniving ass hole, who got caught doing the church secretary on the desk in the office of the church. Instead of de frocking him, he was sent to a small church out in the boonies, where he was treated even better. Including a car, rent free parsonage, paid utilities.
The Supremes may now be the most corrupt branch of the Federal Government and that's saying something! I saw this all the time in corporate law; the attorneys on a deal made good $ but didn't make the $ that the players made. $3-5 million a year is about right for a legitimate 'white shoe' law firm senior partner in NYC (maybe a few million more for the highest partners). In 2008 when everyone went under, the lawyers were scrambling to get paid while Cerberus, et al. made out with billions. So the lawyers get jealous; they want the billionaire lifestyle. Skiing in Gstaad, not Vail (really! I knew a senior partner who went to the Swiss Alps every year for skiing). They get in on the deals even though it's against our code of professional responsibility. How on earth did that scumbag from Georgia who was one of Trump's impeachment attorneys get paid $68 MILLION over a few years? He's a crook, that's how. Just like Scalia, Thomas, Alito....
God Bless you, Thom! This is such. Spot-on article!
Take a small category of elite, powerful people - say, Republican mega-donors who did not like trump. Then of that category, limit it to those who funded opposition research to defeat trump's nomination, then of those folks limit it further to only those who spoke out strongly against trump calling him idiotic or some such names.
Then, of whoever is left in this category of the trump-bashing, trump opposed gop donors, limit it further only to:
- those who received an invitation to dine personally with trump in the White House during his first year of office.
And, alas, we are left with only one Republican donor. His name is Paul Singer.
Today we have SOME lefty media that has mentioned Singer. Perhaps this will become a trend. There's SO MUCH MORE to say.
In three years, it will be the 30th anniversary of the nsmia law, enacted in '96 and signed by President Clinton, which had such an enormous impact on the economy, politics, everything in this country, that it's just impossible to underestimate it when we combine the change with citizens united. Result? we have hedge fund magnates basically running the country for the last decade.
So we barely heard about who was funding Ted Cruz when he was going around the country talking about how much of a problem he had with "New York values." Of course it was a New York billionaire named Robert Mercer!
Many Harvard people like Tom Cotton, who serve from states like Arkansas they also have a connection to people that went to Harvard like Paul Singer.
But without jumping ahead of myself, too much, I'm going to point out one thing that is of critical importance for people to know at this point. Paul singer was an attorney before he became one of the most notorious of all hedge fund operators. Paul singer went to Harvard law school and worked at Fried, Frank. Paul understands the importance of law to everything involving the economy, business and related political aspects , and knows how to manipulate and mold these things better than just about anybody on this planet.
One of the great great features of hedge funds for these folks, and the lack of hedge fund regulation, for these billionaires is their ability to hide, an ability not to serve on public boards if they don't want to, the ability to stay behind the scenes, and manipulate politics, and manipulate the economy and manipulate large public companies.
When Jack Dorsey stepped down from Twitter, there were all kinds of media accounts - all focused on Jack Dorsey. Nobody I am aware in the media focused on the fact that it was actually Paul singer's firm that had invested in twitter, got a seat on its board, and then helped orchestrate the end of Dorsey.
There's so much more to say about all this, but we're going to end here today. The fact that this major publicity about the real world of hedge fund power has now come out before the public is quite an important thing.
SCOTUS Influencers - Is It Impersonal Bribery or Friendly Perpetual Peer Pressure?
It's FPPP. Thanks Thom.
Follow the connections and favors shared between billionaires like Paul Singer, Harlan Crowe and Charles Koch and Supreme Court Justices and what they get it return with this interactive Relationship Map. https://thedemlabs.org/2023/06/21/supreme-court-fishy-business-follow-the-money-samuel-alito-paul-singer/
Important point made in open secrets article:
"The support of Singer, then, is by itself worth much to Rubio. But if history repeats itself, Singer’s money could be something of a magnet, reaping even greater returns: Several other hedge funders tend to gravitate to the same candidates and causes he backs. That could be due to Singer’s influence among donors — or maybe the billionaire just knows how to pick ’em."
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/11/heres-why-paul-singers-endorsement-of-rubio-matters/
Here's a better place to start.
https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/donor_detail?cycle=2016&id=U0000000066&type=I&super=N&name=Singer,+Paul+E
That chart doesn't skim the surface even. Singer is mega-donor and mega-connected Harvard law alum. Like "sit down and talk to justice Kennedy over lunch before he writes a decision" mega-connected. He bankrolled Tom cotton, Marco Rubio, many others. The most important thing to understand is he is brilliant legal strategist. Kicking Dorsey out of twitter was easy, bringing a country like Argentina to its knees in us federal court might have taken more planning. There is a huge connection between law and finance that goes almost completely uncovered by mainstream and lefty media, which means it goes almost unnoticed. People that follow investment and finance fields (and if they are particularly aware of the hedge fund and private funds industry) or who follow specialized legal developments , are both much more well-versed about past events and better understand the practices of a titan like singer.
On oct 11, 2015 nyt published a report in the early money going into 2016 race. One million dollars or more donors to super pacs (a year before election) were researched and it was observed:
- about 400 families account for an enormous portion of all super pac money;
- the nouvelle rich, primarily from fracking and hedge funds- create a newer cast of characters than typically in us history, where great family wealth traditionally dominated the largest donors. Now, it's "new rich" like Paul Singer who dominate.
Open secrets has several articles and research tools where you can see millions upon millions of singer's right wing donations, but also an article in which it explains that the network of donors will usually pile on after singer.
THAT is influence and THAT is power.
When reviewing lists of the largest donors note that in some years these donors intentionally withhold in order to assert more influence, keep candidates in line.
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/11/heres-why-paul-singers-endorsement-of-rubio-matters/
These justices need to be impeached!!! At the very least, moving forward, they need to recuse themselves from cases involving their “friends”. Better yet, pay their own way when they vacation with their billionaire “friends”.
There has got to be someone out there who heard these billionaires discussing their intentions to “bribe” these judges. We know what is happening, but that would show intent. Maybe then it could be prosecuted.
Thank you for once again explaining a deeper connection to reality. I also really appreciate the historical through-line. Truth fits together so well. Although, the picture painted is not always pretty. Ruthie B
Even though it's not mandatory to be a lawyer or judge to be on SCOTUS, most are. Law must have had incredible meaning in some of the most significant years of their lives. We all get caught-up in the rigors of family, politics, and just being busy. As we age and mellow, some reflect on their roots.
The phrase "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW" is literally carved into the Supreme Court facade. That would be one of the constant reminders that make them understand the goal and the weight of their actions. Being surrounded by clerks and people that look up to them would be another. A mentally healthy person is going to understand so much more after observing history in the making and learning more about people in their lifetime.
Damaged people with growing resentments are easy marks. They are not reflecting or focusing on their love of the law or justice. Weak. Greedy. Pathetic.
I watched Joshua Kaplan from ProPublica on C-SPAN. He spoke to judges and they were appalled about what they were seeing concerning the Justices. They won't even accept lunch from lawyers that appear before them. They also explained recusal by asking the reporter if he would like to appear before a judge that goes on vacation with the person suing him.
The hypothesis as presented is completely tenable and checks out in terms of the historical record. I would not quibble except to say that there has been a tectonic shift in the reactionary direction from more sensible and sane conservatism which has affected the candidates for offices and the Supreme Court, making them less open to argument and more heavily weighted toward authoritarianism, religious extremism, elitism, power-seeking, and ethnocentrism or xenophobic sentimentality. I have an article from about 1995 by a law professor from UNLV named Henderson which traces the trend of the "conservatives" on the high court radically toward authoritarianism (which I could locate with a little effort). These people see themselves as special, superior, privileged, and more competent, so it makes perfect sense that they should have all the perks and favors and that billionaires would want to share their company and extend generous offers of trips and vacations with them. The influence starts with grades and attention is school and in most cases now in circles which have religion, piety, and sanctimony at the center. Power and privilege are in their culture and they have no reason to question it or to bother to think consciously about it. Did I mention that authoritarianism's influence starts with schools which are necessarily hierarchical by "virtue" of their establishment and maintenance under the law?
Robert, I honed in on a word in your comment and completely agree with it. Reactionary. Those calling themselves conservative now are actually reactionaries pulling the country backwards. I wrote a post about it on my own Substack called "Conservative or Reactionary?" which notes some of the things you've identified.
Although I agree with Thom's post, I wonder if there is an additional facet to the observed liberal drift of past Justices confirmed as conservatives. Political conservatives generally claim to be for less government intrusion in personal lives and decisions. It seems that from Nixon and Reagan on, the conservative cause included restrictions on personal decisons that don't hew to whatever interpretation the religious base sees as Judeo-Christian. It's now as much, if not more, socially conservative than politically so. I wonder if it isn't so much that the judges mentioned got more liberal but because this redefinition to promote infringement on socially liberal individual choices is not truly politically conservative but socially conservative. Now that those have become mingled, the golden handcuffs become necessary for all the purposes Thom outlined to keep them agreeable to write decisions affecting individual choice and freedom. This occurs while dragging the country backwards to a time of robber barons and children dispatched to clean dust from under running looms.
The problem as I see it is that the people who identify as conservative have no grounding in or understanding of bona fide conservative thinking, tradition, philosophy, or logic. They have an extremely truncated conception of what conservatism means and become fixated on simplistic ideas and slogans, which may or may not represent an ideology that has at least some degree of rational basis. They find the conservative penchant for caution too attractive because they harbor extreme uncertainty and fear. Religious faith assuages that irrational fear. They are drawn like moths to self-serving modalities and the institutions or organizations which reinforce attitudes aligned with protecting one’s interests, defending oneself from malice, “bad people”, strangers, and exploitation. “Free market fundamentalism”, predatory capitalism, oligarchy, Christian nationalism, bigotry, and xenophobia, etc., all fit in perfectly with their myopic vision of life and people, and perceiving those who are outside their insular group must be seen as enemies who threaten their precarious position. The greater focus on social issues merely reflects the expansion into more areas as they become more extreme and intolerant and their failure to comprehend the nuances of political controversies.. Birds of a feather need each other to boost their egos and allay their haunting insecurities.
Corruption of the congress and Supreme Court involves money and a lot of it, but not just that - a coordinated network of donors pooling and playing off their enormous resources (And also, the Largest political donation from Exxon went to biden).
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/11/heres-why-paul-singers-endorsement-of-rubio-matters/
I've referred to Kagan's rejection of lox & bagels more than once. Her example reflects the 18th century English Common Law meaning of bribery and is the meaning of Bribery in the Constitution. Nonetheless in 2017 McDonnell Kagan joined in the unanimous ruling that accepting 200k$ of gifts was just dandy so long as you were not so addlepated as to give quid pro quo. Why? Stare Decisis. 'Honest' judges respect Precedents created by Federalist Society terrorists intent on creating a fascist state. That single precedent neuters the Constitutional meaning of bribery. Hence all the Sound and Fury in Congress and Media (including your arguments Thom) signifies nothing. Nothing more than Alito's public embarrassment in a snappish reply - insulting his gracious host.
Now there are rules that apply to all Federal judges - but are not enforced on the fracking Supremes for wont of a higher Court (or a modicum of Congressional initiative). This is detailed in https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/03/time-for-supreme-court-to-adopt-ethics-rules/ So when Kavanaugh was elevated, the 80 or so Ethics Violations that he had accrued in his Circuit Court time - vanished.
Astonishingly the wonton destruction of the basis of representative democracy, the control of political bribery, is widely recognized - e.g. Zephyr Teachout notes that Quid Pro Quo bribery arose in mid 20th century contract law - yet No Recourse is even considered.
Is that how we let the world end? For that is the Clear and Present danger as we rush into the intersection of fracking corporate fascism and Climate Collapse induced by the frackers. [Briefly: State and Corporate Fascism are distinct realizations encompassed in Mussolini's succinct definition of fascism as the merger of State and corporate power. I see the planned 2024 election as a contest between Corp. Fascism represented by the appeaser/collaborator Biden and the folks who would be Fuhrer. Disruption of the DNC plan is essential.]
The only obligation the Supreme Court is bound by is their Oath to the Constitution. That is more than enough. Just as surely as Article 3 Section 1 asserts that "...Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour..." it asserts the contrapositive "...Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall lose their Offices by bad Behaviour..."
As is my wont I self-identify: Tom@TomWellsForCongress.com (FL CD3)
All capitalist Nations end with the robber barons in charge. Only a socialist Nation can be civilized and stand the test of time. That is why the robber barons don't like the poor to think rationally and always oppose education while keeping them drunk on religion. As the supreme Court justices are being groomed with money, so have the masses been since world war II. We have the truth on our side and God as well. We are like David and Goliath. Hopefully if we can spread the truth and enlighten the ignorant, we can defeat them with 1/10 of the money they spend. We need some support from benevolent billionaires if there are any, to get started. With all the creative talent the left has, surely we could make some 30 second commercials educating the trumpsters what a dictatorship is. And asking for donations to keep the commercials going. So if we start out small, it could mushroom into quite a project and unite all the godly people, even if they don't believe there is a God. Those antenna TV channels must be reasonably priced, God knows there is constant lawyer commercials and paid products commercials. Advertising during the Western TV shows and movies, could reach a lot of right wingers who can't afford cable.
Good post with two exceptions.
1. The likelihood of a benevolent billionaire is as likely as a blind marksman.
2. You lost me at God being on our side. First that presupposes a god, if so then which one, so many to choose from, But in your face evidence is that this supposedly omnescient, omnipresent beneficial god is not on our side, but on the side of evil, like Putin, Xi, Trump, the Republican party and the millionaire/billionaires.
I don't have the luxury of engaging in fantasy or wishful thinking. We have to help ourselves, by forming a no nonsense, no surrender, unbribeable alliance and lots of luck with the latter.
If one truth has been revealed by history, and by This excellent essay by Thom, is that everyone has a price and the billionaires have learned to do it with Golden Handcuffs.
Thanks for that Thom
Also, God in my opinion, may be energy, life, or anything or nothing. I think that about covers it.
When I joined AA back in 89, one of the requirements was that we have a higher power. I chose the ceiling fan as my higher power. Setting aside the religious stuff like "The Lord's Prayer" I found sharing with a community of alcoholics was very helpful, and instead of going to a bar or buying a case of beer, I would go to a meeting, and then more meetings, until the craving left me. And when I felt like breaking sobriety I would call on my sponsor, and they would talk me off the cliff. I did the same for others when I became a sponsor.
As regards energy as god. Why not, it is indestructible always is, just changes form to matter and then back to energy. It is omnipresent, but not omniscient , and not all powerful, it doesn't give a shit, so praying to it is a waste of time.
As an aside. I was watching NatGeo episode about the Himalayan honey bees, they hived and reproduced in the Himalayas and in summer they would migrate down the Indus Valley, the hive would stop and rest on the very same overhang or branch as the previous years migration, yet the migration was led by scouts that were born AFTER the previous years migration. There are many examples of such .
Then I saw an episode about Zombie ants, it seems there are Zombie beetles and other insects as well. the actor is a ophiocordycepts unilateralls, a fungus which has no eyes muscles, skeletal structure until it drops on an insect, it then invades the insect and takes over the insects brain, and uses it to see and manipulate the insect, such that a spore can, using the insects sense and motor organs have the corpus climb a twig or leaf, sink in their mandibles, consume the insect from the inside out and when ready, bloom and drop more spore on the ant trail to infect other ants or insects. I've seen videos of lifeless beetles that were infected, laying on their back, dead as a door nail and mostly empty, flailing their legs and trying to perambulate.
That made me ponder the possibility that there was a creator after all, a microscipic creator, and that while plants and animals evolve. They change in response to changes in the environment, be it the gravitational field, climate, and also in response to changes in the host, prey or predator.
When a prey has "evolved" defenses against a predator, the predator also evolves abilities to catch the prey. And vice versa, it is an arms race. Same with vegetation, as the environment changes flora also changes, or goes extinct.
So what is this microscopic creator, Prions?.mitochondia , genes? A cheetah catches a Thompson's gazelle, the gazelle dies, but not this"prion" or mitochondria, or whatever, there is an information exchange, and based on the info conveyed by the gazelle's "prions", the cheetahs genes are tweaked.
In the Galapagos there is a flower which has a long stem, the pollen of which can only be reached by a bird with a long beak. There is a finch, that lives only on the Galapagos .
So what drove a flower to evolve such a long stem, and what drove the finch to alter its
genetic structure as to grow long beaks..
Something was at work, but frankly science can't come up with the answers or is afraid to, because they have no answer within the realm of the current orthodoxy.
Mssrs Taylor and Wegener, even Tesla, had the same problem, with T & W authored the continental drift period, they were harassed by the establishment, called fakirs, cranks,kooks, until the theory of plate tectonics surfaced, but you will not find any geology text books, that offer an apology to T & W
Everything we think and do is right or wrong, moral are immoral, good or evil, negative or positive. To believe anything as the absolute truth that can't be proven is evil. Religious faith is evil. I am in agnostic who leans strongly towards there being no God. It is important to keep an open mind, just in case, truth and or energy or anything else, is God. I bet on the whole roulette wheel, not just one slot . The odds are way against those with closed minds and bet on one slot. Plus close mines quit learning. I just expect the people who claim to serve God to be virtuous not parasitic. In my opinion, the evil parasite serve Satan. The only thing capable of waking these Trump loving zombies up is the truth that they are being manipulated by the New world order globalists to be their slaves. I roughly figure about $400,000 would be needed to start up a commercial TV blitz aimed at the Republicans, and if asking for donations at the end didn't work, then it would be a failure. I suspect there are millions of liberals that would donate to fund these anti-fascist commercials who do not want to listen to politics for hours. I enjoy that too much and I need to get more done around here. America has 5.3 million millionaires and $770 billionaires approximately. If none of them are capable or have no desire or are afraid to gamble $400,000, I guess America and democracy and the human race are not worth saving. The American billionaires will find out that paying taxes is cheaper than paying protection money.
You sound like you are making Pascal's wager, hedging bets against an afterlife.
My father in law was one such, he attended church as often as he could. When thoroughly questioned, his answer was simply that of Pascal's wager.
U told him that if there was an omnescient god, then that god would know that he was insincere and only hedging his bets that he would go to the sky when he died.
I use sky, because that is what it is called in Latin and Romance languages. Do people really believe that there are disembodied people floating around in the sky? If so then they must be thoroughly and totally disturbed with all of the air traffic and parachutists, flying and falling through their domain.
Of course the notion that the dead went on in the sky was salable until man learned to fly.
And then it became a ridiculous idea, which the church (churches) obfuscated by equating the sky to some other dimensional realm, with claiming another dimension, a realm that exists in the mind of believers and no where else.
Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, was aware that man could now soar into heaven, on balloons, and thus modified heaven to be planets and stars, and each of his disciples would have their own.
Scientologists are of the same ilk.
Ok but welcome to America we hope you like it here. If you don't enjoy organized religion (like 3/4 of us) there's also places like the kabbala center in LA where you can experience Jewish mysticism, and maybe even meet Madonna. Also many other cults - so much to choose from!
https://news.gallup.com/poll/358364/religious-americans.aspx
https://www.culteducation.com/group/1008-kabbalah-centre/11815-kabbalah-centre-hawks-snake-oil-for-the-soul-.html
I have lived here for 84 years. What about you.
There's a new religiousity. Even the non-practicing types believe in all kinds of false idols, especially technology. But whether American zest for religiosity morphs into a zest for something else, it still has to be accounted for in any political strategy that American electorate is more religious or has more religious inclinations than (for example) in western Europe, supposedly.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/09/05/u-s-adults-are-more-religious-than-western-europeans/
Those that claim to serve a god are frauds. They serve themselves using a sock puppet they call Yah, Al Ilah, Krshna, god or whatever. It is easier than actually doing hard work for a living.
My Uncle was a Southern Baptist minister. A real rake, a sponge who lived off the community, and a misogynistic,homophobic, racist as well. I lived under his roof, actually the shotgun (slave) cabin that he owned that was about 30 feet from his house, which was the residence of his parents, my grandparents with whom I lived.
He bragged about how little he earned, about the same monthly allowance as Mao Tse Tung.
And like Mao, his cup runneth over, he had free car,free gas, free insurance, toured the congregation every day, scheduling to arrive at Dinner or Supper. On his birthday he was showered with gifts as was Christmas. Basically his salary was discretionary money, he used to buy more property, the house bordering his.
He was a scheming, conniving ass hole, who got caught doing the church secretary on the desk in the office of the church. Instead of de frocking him, he was sent to a small church out in the boonies, where he was treated even better. Including a car, rent free parsonage, paid utilities.