US Supreme Court needs more scrutiny, not less
It&#x27;s interesting that the complaint for scrutiny comes now when loud liberal voices are upset with current rulings. When the rulings favored the liberal agenda there was no calls for scrutiny everything was just fine. Anyone who said anything different was told it doesn&#x27;t matter it&#x27;s totally fine.<p>Never mind the fact that all the complaints that are made today against the current Court could be made against past justices. The call for scrutiny seems to be about neutering one branch of government and less about any actual problem. Because if people and Congress really cared about corruption they would look to themselves first. Where are the calls for the scrutiny of all the Congressional members that just happened to magically sell off vast amounts of stocks right before the legislation was announced for the covid lockdowns that crashed the market. They didn&#x27;t want any scrutiny then.<p>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&#x27;d think that would be readily apparent because the opinions and views of these justices are known they&#x27;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&#x27;t see that at all.<p>You can disagree with the ruling to strike down roe v Wade you can disagree with the bruin ruling. You can disagree with the ruling striking down the Tillman act but what you can&#x27;t do is say that these rulings were inconsistent with the views and the history of the justices who made the rulings.<p>Without pointing out inconsistencies in the rulings of the justices everything in this article is absolute garbage and useless. It&#x27;s just someone whining that they didn&#x27;t like the rulings not that scrutiny or ethics would have changed the ruling. Because the easiest thing to do is to shout down someone you can make no argument against. Because if there&#x27;s corruption if there&#x27;s an ethics violations that are influencing rulings that should be easy to point out but where is the evidence?