US Supreme Court curbed public scrutiny as it boosted security before Roe ruling
1–10 of 42 posts
Re: US Supreme Court curbed public scrutiny as it boosted security before Roe ruling
#2So the US Supreme Court is corrupt, well why not join the rest of the US Gov. in getting "gifts and tips".
Re: US Supreme Court curbed public scrutiny as it boosted security before Roe ruling
#3So the US Supreme Court is corrupt, well why not join the rest of the US Gov. in getting "gifts and tips".
Clarence Thomas did exactly this.
Re: US Supreme Court curbed public scrutiny as it boosted security before Roe ruling
#4[flagged]
Re: US Supreme Court curbed public scrutiny as it boosted security before Roe ruling
#5So the US Supreme Court is corrupt, well why not join the rest of the US Gov. in getting "gifts and tips".
Clarence Thomas did exactly this.
Samuel Alito as well.
https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishi...
Re: US Supreme Court curbed public scrutiny as it boosted security before Roe ruling
#6So they don't want the public to have details regarding their security processes. Why is it in the public interest to know when the shift change is for the guards at the supreme court?
Re: US Supreme Court curbed public scrutiny as it boosted security before Roe ruling
#7Alito was on the phone with Trump just one day before he ruled on his case.
That is never ever supposed to happen and probably never has before.
It doesn't get any more corrupt than that.
Re: US Supreme Court curbed public scrutiny as it boosted security before Roe ruling
#8So they don't want the public to have details regarding their security processes. Why is it in the public interest to know when the shift change is for the guards at the supreme court?
It's just a side channel signal that they are self-aware of making unpopular decisions?
Re: US Supreme Court curbed public scrutiny as it boosted security before Roe ruling
#9This article is almost entirely about plausibly reasonable security measures in response to credible threats/risks.
If members of SCOTUS are showing up to billionaire eyes-wide-shut parties in the forest, where bribes are paired with underage-goat kompromat, that's a problem, and you'd want transparency for that. But, sadly, due to our current cultural problems in public discourse and reasoning, much/most of the populace is being riled up by social media propaganda/shilling/mobs/habit, some people milk movements of public figures as fuel for that, and occasionally some mentally ill person acts on the noise and information. Some security is appropriate.
But, so long as we're being understanding about the importance of privacy for some privileged few, in the interests of equality...
> That bill passed into law the next year and outlawed the publication of personally identifying information about federal and supreme court justices online by data brokers and [...]
How about also protect the rest of us from that surveillance/stalking industry?
Re: US Supreme Court curbed public scrutiny as it boosted security before Roe ruling
#10This article is almost entirely about plausibly reasonable security measures in response to credible threats/risks. If members of SCOTUS are showing up to billionaire eyes-wide-shut parties in the forest, where bribes are paired with underage-goat kompromat, that's a problem, and you'd want transparency for that. But, sadly, due to our current cultural problems in public discourse and reasoning, much/most of the popu…
I wonder if they'll hear any challenges to that law.