Fucking Funny How "Judicial Independence" Gets Really Flexible Around Billionaires

Jul 17, 2026 10:53 PM

JamieGeorge

Views

18868

Likes

976

Dislikes

124

One of the strangest fucking debates in modern politics is whether Supreme Court justices should accept lavish gifts from billionaires.
Imagine explaining that sentence to someone in 1990.
"Wait... that's... legal?"

Judges are supposed to be independent.
Not sponsored.
If your highest court starts looking like an influencer posting "Thanks to my generous benefactors!" we've wandered into a parody of democracy. ⚖️

Notice how every proposal for stronger ethics rules is treated as some outrageous assault on the judiciary.
No, Karen.
The assault is creating a system where public trust depends on hoping nobody's yacht invitation influences anything.

The rule shouldn't be controversial.
Justice shouldn't come with complimentary vacations, luxury hospitality, or billionaire perks.
If people lose faith that the referee is impartial, eventually they stop believing in the fucking game. ⚖️

#SupremeCourt #Ethics #JudicialIndependence #RuleOfLaw #Accountability #Democracy #Politics #Transparency

Say it with me, folks: ThAtS sOcIaLiSm!!!

1 week ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

How about a bill stripping the position of it's "lifetime appointment" status?

1 week ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Can't believe it's needed? I can't belive it doesn't already exist.

1 week ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

#1 the supreme court already met in a special session when they heard a rumor that she might do this and ruled the idea of them not getting lavish gifts unconstitutional in a 6-3 ruling and further ruled that anyone who talked about such thing is subject to a atomic wedgie.

1 week ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Dude, it's over. Democracy is over, not just in the US, but the world. The oligarchy won, and now the climate is collapsing. I've given up on fighting back. Sure, I'll vote, but outside of that... fuck is there to do in this dying world?

Sit back, consume and before you know it, it'll be over.

1 week ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And they'll immediately rule it as an infringement on free speech despite the Constitution being unambiguously clear that bribery is a crime.

1 week ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

It’s a cool thought. They’d just determine it to be non-constitutional and throw it away (even if the legislature wasn’t a completely broken body).

1 week ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Pretty much every last republican senator or congressperson would be eligible for jail by 1990s standards... they are openly defying the law, wiping their asses with the constitution, looting the government and mockingly defying us to try and stop them.

1 week ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 3

Let’s take them up on that

1 week ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

How about any gifts from anybody

1 week ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Please, people, block this garbage OP. It's AI. All of it. The posts are probably pushed by a bot. Look at his history. - - > Screen cap - >AI image in same style - > AI gen text. Every time.

1 week ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Wasn't this from two years ago

1 week ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Technically it isn't allowed, but it's up to the court to enforce its own rules.

1 week ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

SCOTUS has no ethics rules for itself.

1 week ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

And who gets to decide if that law is Constitutional?

1 week ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

We should convince her to push a bill saying if a person of congress or senate misses more than 2 weeks without prior notice such as for vacation, or more than 12 weeks for serious illness (with actual proof of life), then you lose your position and a special vote is held to replace you. That is more than generous, way more than the rest of us get.

1 week ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The last 10 years have demonstrated just how many norms we thought were rules, but have just been suggestions.

1 week ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 1

That’s the thing about values. If you’re willing to look the other way once, it becomes easier to do it again the second time. And if you look the other way a second time, it’s that much easier to look the other way a third time. And again. And again.

For those types of people, I’ve found that if they get away with something, they’re emboldened to go a little further next time, and see if they can get away with a little bit more.

And without consequences, it continues. And continues.

1 week ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

it's human nature to "push the envelope"

1 week ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Good. Now do ALL PUBLIC SERVICE!
The way its SUPPOSED to be!

1 week ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

You guys just don't understand. Clarence has been friends with that billionaire for years now. They go way back, all the way back to when he had just been elected to the supreme court. What's untoward about becoming friends with someone right before you are put in a position to help them avoid consequences for breaking the law?

1 week ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

At least since Nixon/Reagan, we've seen, time and time again, just how FLIMSY the rule of law is in this country, at least when it concerns the rich and connected. The rich get house arrests and heavily lightened sentences but, if they were just a 'peasant' like the rest of us, would have suffered the HARSHEST of consequences. Every GOP and centrist DEM has wormed their way towards it, made concessions or outright made/removed laws to protect them. FFS this country can't even- 1/2

1 week ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

hold their own leaders accountable for fucking anything. Nixon? Got immediately pardoned by his VP, wtf is that allowable? Reagan? NOTHING. The man who literally started this country's spiral down the toilet? No comeuppance. Bush? For all the torturing at Guantanamo Bay? NADDA.

What about Trump? OH well he just was convicted of 30+ FEDERAL crimes. The same kind of crimes that restrict citizens from voting? NAH, he's just ALLOWED to run for president again. This country is a sad joke. 2/2

1 week ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Finally, cutting Thomas off from his white washing therapy sessions.

1 week ago | Likes 26 Dislikes 4

Most likely wont pass but that 0.001% im me os hoping it does

1 week ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Amazing how wealthy SCOTUS judges happen. Weird. I wonder how they do it. /s

1 week ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 4

If a SCJ can't understand tax laws, nobody else in the country should have to follow them either.

1 week ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The same Herman Crow that collects Nazi memorabilia.

1 week ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

He should be jailed

1 week ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

1 week ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

1 week ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

She needs to add "A person convicted of a felony cannot hold any elected office at any level in the US."

1 week ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Do you want a Republican DoJ and judges ramming through kangaroo court convictions of political enemies to disqualify them? Because that's how you get Republican kangaroo court convictions of anyone who they see as a potential threat to their raping of the country.

1 week ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Meh, Republicans asked for it. Rule of law is dead. It's power only.

1 week ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

And who currently holds the power and is in a position to abuse it to ensure the other side does not get to ever wield that power against them, and even moreso if one started with this..?

1 week ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I'm for putting them all up against a wall.

1 week ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

#2

1 week ago | Likes 69 Dislikes 5

I can get on the fucking front page without even trying every day.

It's simply whether or not I'm willing to invest the time.

Touch fucking grass.

1 week ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 7

All the text 🚫AI🚫

1 week ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

OP does it every time. Each post has a screencap, some AI barf, and then LLM-generated text.

1 week ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 2

and imgur upvotes it every time, so why should he stop that shit?

1 week ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

simple solution: ditch the AI/LLM junk

1 week ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

If you fucking disagree with what I wrote, tell me which part you think is wrong. "AI wrote it" isn't a counterargument.

1 week ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 6

1 week ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

It's the use of AI stuff itself that's the issue, not particularly WHAT you're getting it to produce. (ironically, I've seen you make anti-AI posts, which use AI-generated stuff in them, which is... a choice) Those huge techbro datacenters are disasters for communities and the environment. It's not good to give them more usage.

1 week ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1