8 ms·

We've seen people in high places be plied and exhibit favoritism as a result of remarkably unremarkable gifts. Sucks to be a justice but I don't think there ar

• elmerfud 3y ago
  It is correct we have seen this but we have never seen this actually occur in the supreme Court. We have seen the gifts be given we have seen them be befriended by certain people. The strange thing is with Court judges they are actually working all the time. Arguments getting made to them when they are technically off the clock. So while the possibility of gifts influencing an outcome is there we need to see evidence that it actually occurred. Should be easy when you have 20 30 years of rulings behind you and suddenly you reverse course on an issue you were always opposed to. The real place where we see gifts influence outcomes is in Congress. We see that consistently. We see members of Congress argue staunchly for one point and then a few weeks later the vote comes and they will vote completely opposite and you will look at their financing and all of a sudden they got a bump from somewhere. You will see fiercely libertarian people like Rand Paul all of a sudden be anti libertarian. Congress acts wildly inconsistent from one bill to the next. The people can hold them accountable every two or six years. No one does because the people don't care it seems. All of a sudden though Congress wants to neuter a third branch of government because it gets in the way of their agenda. Where is the money coming from to influence this because there is no evidence supreme Court justices have been influenced and are ruling inconsistent from their. But there is mountains of evidence that Congress is heavily influenced by money.