> Ruth Bader Ginsburg did this as well. 38 trips to luxury resorts, worth millions of dollars? No. You have no evidence of that. And she disclosed the trips th

> Ruth Bader Ginsburg did this as well. 38 trips to luxury resorts, worth millions of dollars? No. You have no evidence of that. And she disclosed the trips that she did take. She didn't hide them or lie about them. They didn't remain secret until someone interviewed the pilots and hotel employees etc. who saw her coming and going. You're making a false equivalence. > Are the rulings that they made inconsistent with their past rulings? Many of the recent rulings have indeed been inconsistent with the majority's stated judicial philosophies, such as originalism, textualism, or respect for precedent. As you say that's not airtight evidence, but it's far more suggestive than anything we saw in the last few courts. Roberts is running a clown show. > The problem is this veiled call for scrutiny as an excuse Again you make this claim about others' motives with no evidence. Is the idea of people genuinely caring about judicial integrity so alien to you? Is that the "conservative" (actually very radical) agenda you come here to fulminate about?