comment: >
  
  That dress is a bad prom horror show. No self-respecting woman would show up anywhere in that monstrosity.
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 >
  
  I’m hoping for a Real Housewives of the Supreme Court series. >
  
  Faux news will promote, Tucker will be host, America will lose >
  
  And My Pillow will sponsor it. >
  
  Ahh, it gets worse,
  . LOL >
  
  It does, Yoko Ono will be signing the theme song. >
  
  Accompanied by that guy who butchered 'Every Breath You Take" in front of Sting. >
  
  Was it Sting in the mirror? >
  
  Of course there is at least an appearance of a conflict of interest and likely actual conflict of interest.  Of course there was conflicts of interest (or at least appearance) with Justice Thomas and his wife with her Jan 6 insurrection links as well as her far right activism.  
  I'm surprised they haven't stated that there would be no appearance of a conflict of interest if people would stop investigating and reporting on the lives and business of "private" individuals.  
  I'd argue that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett face direct conflicts of interest by hearing cases brought by lawyers who are members of the Federalist Society, given what I believe was their own (previous?) membership in FS, as well as the FS support for their Supreme Court appointments, and the fact that the FS functions as a idealogical (aka) political party that lawyers choose to be members of. >
  
  This is a common misconception but supreme court justices do not have to sit out due to conflict of interest. They may choose to but its not required. 
  Personally I think they should set a strong example for lower courts. But candidly I can see why its not required. A lot of cases directly affect the supreme court, if they recused themselves over any conflict of interest it could turn into a new sideshow. 
  Dont get me wrong I am not a fan of the conservative judges, nor the fact that they were straight up selected based on their desire to overturn roe v wade. >
  
  Maybe cases directly involved the Supreme Court shouldn't be decided by them. How can they be expected to not vote in their favor? And if they aren't deciding cases that directly involved the court then you're argument for them not being required to recuse themselves disappears. Any case where someone has a conflict of interest and doesn't recuse themselves is a bogus case. They will rule in their own favor. And how could that not be called corrupt? >
  
  This court will live forever in infamy.  In terms of overt corruption, foundational perjury, and decisions strongly favoring only the monied minority, not even the Taney court can touch these completely compromised thugs. >
  
  What a joke.
  Our high court is nakedly corrupt, conspiring with people to get judgements favorable to their ideology, and there's nothing on the horizon thats even going to try to stop their corruption. 
  Everyone in government still treats them as these god-kings of law who are shining examples of jurisprudence, as they actively work with groups who have interests before their court. >
  
  This court is illegitimate. >
  
  Take these people off the court >
  
  All of the MAGA pigs are lined up at the trough >
  
  Not saying it’s not corrupt, but Roberts is objectively not MAGA… although it doesn’t really matter on his court. >
  
  He doesn't like to be associated with MAGA but he's on the MAGA court and votes with MAGA. Nazis did not like to be called Nazis either.  With respect to Roberts it's a distinction without a difference. >
  
  Lol, the SCOTUS literally legalized political bribery. There should have been protests in the streets. >
  
  Roberts wife was being paid to place lawyers in positions to influence cases that would be ruled upon in the court where her husband is the chief justice.  So, if I send a holiday card with a fiver, can they get me out of my parking tickets? >
  
  >A spokeswoman for the Supreme Court said all the justices were "attentive to ethical constraints" and complied with financial disclosure laws.
  I think the days of just taking a justice at their word regarding ethical behavior are dots in the rear view mirror getting smaller. >
  
  Like Kennedy’s son working for a bank that is under investigation by the FBI. A bank that launders cartel and Russian mob money. The only bank that will loan Donald Trump money?  Maybe investigate more than the spouses.  While we’re at it, Kavanaugh’s weird baseball ticket finances and Gorsuch and Barrett’s parents working for extractive / oil industry think tank / lobbying fronts. >
  
  It seems our SC is not above political philanthropy.  LOL. >
  
  Oh, they absolutely are! Just ask them, they'll tell you! >
  
  America is so grossly corrupt that I am not sure it can be unfucked. >
  
  Perfectly defeatist, and wrong. We're at least a few months away from that. /s >
  
  And Roberts’ wonders why people don’t view SCOTUS as legitimate. >
  
  It's OK! They've investigated themselves and found that the interns did nothing wrong. And that the SC Justices work very hard and deserve a raise. >
  
  Another one of the most corrupt Court to date… >
  
  How dare you investigate my family…We need to investigate Hunter Biden!!! The hypocrisy of politics is bazaar. >
  
  Time to forget I read this since nothing will come of it. If Thomas can face no consequences for having an insurrectionist wife, Roberts will see no issues for his financially scheming wife >
  
  We are all going to suffer because of this Court. 
  We can thank the Bush administrations and Trump for all of this - >
  
  Scrutiny?  How about ridden out of town on a rail! >
  
  I'm starting to think that being a justice's spouse is one of the most lucrative and powerful positions in this country. >
  
  Only if you have a magic R after your name. >
  
  What happened to our system of checks and balances??? >
  
  They are raking in the checks which ups their balances. >
  
  Widely exposing unethical practises the enrich members of SCOTUS is the first step in cleaning it up.  Until people realize the depth of the problems, they will shrug and think "sore losers" as money buys skewed justice. >
  
  Trump was right about the swamp, except he was planning on putting the swamp on steroids and did.  Republicans in general have low to no empathy and are grifters by nature as they think everyone is out to screw them when in fact it's them.  That's why they are so prone to wild conspiracy theories and paranoid so much to be survivalists and doomsday peepers. It's a brain deficiency for sure. >
  
  Supreme Court should’ve had term limits long ago. It’s an anathema to have these 80 yos work something like only 140 days a year for life, making terrible pro corporate decisions in an era they have no skin in, and don’t care about at all. Decisions that mainly affect the youth. >
  
  The collapse of great nations starts with corruption just like this. >
  
  Let's see...Mrs. Clarence Thomas..."I Like Beer"...ACB...
  They haven't scrutinized the courts before now.  Why start now? >
  
  It's obvious we need new amendment s to the Constitution and an entire overhaul of the courts including the Supreme. The whole system is completely outdated and needs to be modernized for today's times. The founder's in their wildest dreams couldn't have seen things like assault rifles,  BIPOC being recognized as human beings or even something as simple as women having a legal paying job, more less a powerful one like recruiting for high powered law firms. This is nuts, the system has to change or it will forever be corrupted. >
  
  The veil has fallen: SCOTUS has been exposed as being just as corrupt as you could imagine an entity could be that is unscrutinized and above accountability. >
  
  Corruption everywhere, and they aren't even trying to hide >
  
  Also investigate whoever sold her that purple dress. It is a crime of fashion.