Something impossible to obtain, just for us that is. They seem to like to discriminate after all.

Maybe they should post their price list - which could end up in a bidding war that gets them even more cash in the end.

Probably go that route being as greedy as they are. Like you said, money is money.

... as long as the corrupt 6 are the majority, the honest 3 are just collateral damage.

Their dissent - no matter how vociferous and boldly-stated - does not change what IS the decision of the SCOTUS as a whole, and what becomes the prevailing law.

And duty? That's for suckers.

... and a sense of duty - if the price paid for doing so was right.

Of course those principles and duty would have an expiration date - being until the next decision went up on the auction block.

I don't think it violates Gofundme rules because it's not illegal, or even unethical, apparently.

... if Roe v Wade wouldn't have been overturned if pro-choice groups had pooled their financial resources and simply out-bid the opposition.

I think Gofundme is a great idea, BTW. People could simply pledge to donate a certain amount to be paid if-and-when the SCOTUS decides in favour of abortion rights, LGBT protections, etc.

It would certainly bring attention to the fact that the RW justices are for sale.

The trigger could be something simple, like the sudden recognition of a right to bodily autonomy in the Constitution. That covers a lot and the Gofundme page could detail the numerous places in the Constitution where that right is stated implicitly, like the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, 13th, and 14th Amendments.

But it would be a great publicity stunt, emphasizing that certain SCOTUS votes are up for sale.

Last edited Sat Jul 1, 2023, 03:00 PM - Edit history (1)

Do people really believe these recent decisions are the result of bribery? They want to make these rulings, they were picked specifically because they would make these rulings. It's not like they're really progressive liberals on the inside who betray their values for cash and lavish vacations. They are true believers.

But it's impossible to overlook the bribery this court has blatantly demonstrated.

One wonders if the "true believers" would be persuaded to believe differently if there was enough incentive to do so.

We know they were specifically chosen because they would render the decisions they have. But doesn't that raise the question of why other 'incentives' were necessary to ensure those decisions would be forthcoming.

Justices have certainly leveraged their positions to improve their lifestyle.

I have seen no evidence of blatant bribery. Lots of speculation, but no evidence.