Oh, oh. SCOTUS could decide some time next year that there are no limits on election campaign money at all.
Keeping our democracy depends on at least two of the gang of six being not entirely shameless. There was some indication of that this last term, but not on any of the really big cases.
Update, 14:30−5: Another SCOTUSblog post.
John Roberts is speaking to 4th circuit judges and saying that judges should care only about where the law leads, not about what the effects of the decision are. Given that each justice’s vote on the really big cases that make the news can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy, I have trouble believing that he’s telling the truth.
I forgot who it was, but several years ago I watched a short interview with one of the early investors in some net startups that went huge. He became a billionaire. It was obvious after a bit that he’s entirely in favor of granting people as many votes as they have dollars. He considers that “fair”. I imagine that if we went back in time 240 years, he’d also think the 3/5ths Compromise would’ve been “fair”.
In unfettered free market capitalism, everything is for sale, everything has a price, and the acquisition of money is the ultimate “good”. In Star Trek, we’d call these people Ferengi.
I reckon you mob are an outlier.
I asked Copilot (a tamed instance):
Me: are other countries’ highest courts composed of two factions as in the usa (conservatives vs liberals)
Bot: U.S. Supreme Court: lifetime tenure and partisan confirmations create a binary split.
Europe: appointments by consensus bodies limit extremes.
Canada: merit and regional balance keep the court centrist.
UK: career judges chosen independently, avoiding politics.
Japan: bureaucratic selections and retention votes keep ideology muted.
Australia: executive appointments focus on expertise; factions are rare.
Conclusion: most courts dampen polarization; the U.S. stands apart.
@#2
Even in the USA, the Supreme Court has very rarely been as partisan as it is now.