comment: >
  
  I’m hoping for a Real Housewives of the Supreme Court series.
context: The U.S. Supreme Court is facing renewed calls for greater scrutiny after a letter sent to Congress said Chief Justice John Roberts' wife's business ties may present a conflict of interest.
  A former colleague of Jane Sullivan Roberts has sent records to Congress and the Justice Department indicating that her work as a legal recruiter poses ethics concerns for the chief justice, The New York Times reported.
  The records indicate that she has been paid millions of dollars in commissions for placing lawyers at firms, including at some that have business before the high court, according to a letter obtained by the newspaper.
  Kendal Price argued in the letter that justices should have to disclose more information about their spouses work, adding that he was concerned a financial relationship with law firms arguing before the court could have an affect on justices' impartiality or give the appearance of having an affect. >
  
  It definitely sounds like an ethical conflict and a cause for concern. But if Ginni Thomas working like a demon, trying to overthrow the rightfully elected government in 2020/21 didn't prompt any reforms - I don't see how this moves the needle on public opinion. Half the country thinks abusing political power for personal financial gain makes you "smart". >
  
  
  But if Ginni Thomas working like a demon, trying to overthrow the rightfully elected government in 2020/21 didn't prompt any reforms
  
  Both fair and defeatist. Things are always the same until they are different. >
  
  So you're saying hold out for hope - but whats the point if it's not going to change? In a lot of ways all we're doing is establishing that these really crappy things are `precedent`. So when the next thing happens - and it absolutely will, we all measure it against these other events and go "well it wasn't that bad and they got to keep their job". Ultimately, that's how a country gets destroyed. It's hard to be hopeful about this. >
  
  Because we have rather strong historical evidence to what happens when people don’t keep hopefully repeating the unacceptability of something even when that thing refuses change.  There are many countries where judicial corruption was evident and protests were made and then died down only for the corruption to become worse and in the open.  Russia is a great example of this.  The problem with that is then not only do the criminals who are clever and who make backroom deals profit, but now so do the dumber, more violent ones.  At the very least maintaining a cultural perspective of how wrong this is keeps people like the justices ashamed and attempting to hide their actions which, while also not ideal in any sense of the word, has some bulwarking effect on further societal crumbling.  
  Anyone who thinks that would be ok hasn’t known someone who was shot for not paying a bribe to an official and not be able to even drum up a case in court because it’s so accepted that bribing officials openly was just what was needed to be done. >
  
  You're literally proving his point though. There is literally no point in saying "this thing is bad" and then not doing anything meaningful to change it. News articles and Reddit comments aren't ways to change the course of a nation and too many people don't get this.
  Unless the article has a way to counteract the degradation of our country it's just more noise. >
  
  Respectfully if no one is discussing it and no articles are being written about it, how could anyone possibly know it’s a problem to fix?  The idea that no one should discuss the scenario unless they have a fix only seems to support the people who benefit by the problem not being solved.  It’s probably worth wondering a little bit why it is that sometimes the assertion that we shouldn’t be discussing unless we have a solution is astroturfed… if anything it seems to encourage apathy and acceptance of the situation as unchangeable.  I’m not sure why anyone would desire to help out with that. >
  
  
  The idea that no one should discuss the scenario unless they have a fix
  
  "I've never flown a helicopter, but if I saw one in a tree, I could be like '...dude fucked up'"
  You don't need to be an expert to criticize something that is obviously wrong. >
  
  ~~Respectfully, seeing a helicopter in a tree is a thing people only need eyes to see.  Knowing that a SCOTUS’ wife has conflicts of interests with a law office that they aren’t publicly letting people know about SEEMS like it might be something that requires slightly more specialized knowledge to figure out that having articles written about and people discussing might prove helpful with making people aware of.~~
  Apologies I might have misread your comment.  I agree that you don’t need expertise or a solution to criticize something. >
  
  No need for respectfully, I'm on your side with everything you wrote, just adding an example. You're right in that there's probably some specialized knowledge required to make a proper determination one way or the other, but we can and should talk about these things as they progress. >
  
  lol Supreme Court wives are America’s fastest-growing domestic terror cell