Well it's tricky because in one case you're talking about threatening judicial independence, and in the other you're talking about a story that's already been discredited by its source.
But keeping the drama alive gets news outfits lots of clicks and ad revenue, facts aside, so we keep getting hit with the slanted dramatic tellings.
I mean our democratic process doesn't buy these stories about justices being bought and paid for in the first place.
Yes, some special interest groups and clickbait reporters are making good with all of those stories that are often debunked pretty quickly, but never mind that.
In general keep in mind that the Supreme Court doesn't make judgments of others. It's mostly an appellate court considering the work of lower courts, not of the others being judged.
So I guess I'm saying, I think you are really kind of going chaotically off base here, being misled both by stories with conflicts of interests and by misunderstandings of how the Supreme Court works in the first place.
Just watch out for those people who are making money by selling these dramatic stories.
@volkris @wonkcosmo what if the justices who aren't bought and paid for quit en masse if the corrupt judge doesn't quit. Clean their own house before making judgements of others