> What I never see in any of these articles about justices getting favors or gifts or this and that is any link that influenced the outcome of a case. You'd thi

> What I never see in any of these articles about justices getting favors or gifts or this and that is any link that influenced the outcome of a case. You'd think that would be readily apparent because the opinions and views of these justices are known they've held them for decades. The rulings they make are very consistent to the point that scholars can predict the outcomes of nearly every case. So if them having friendships with powerful people and receiving gifts were influencing the outcomes of cases we would see inconsistent rulings happening. We don't see that at all. I think you just haven't actually read anything about the Clarence Thomas information in the past 3 months? There are specific Harlan Crow interests that have been amici briefs in cases on which he has judged. That's pretty cut and dry as this go. But it looks to me based on this statement that the standard of proof for you is going to be "Please show me the check with the memo line that says 'I gave this check for your vote on the Supreme Court'" And anything short of that isn't going to cut it for you. That's not the way corruption works. It's not a one-off. You go back to the corrupted well, and you start to justify it to yourself as not corrupt, because "he's just my friend, and we have an understanding and see eye-to-eye." Pretending that Harlan Crow doesn't have more influence on the court than you or I do because of his payments to Thomas is willful blindness to corruption. Also, there have been equally questionable things about liberal justices. I don't care, I want more transparency from all of them, absolutely. But the don't pretend this is a liberal conservative thing when there's a clear case of corruption on the table. All of the justices voted against stricter scrutiny, and that's suspicious to me.