The worst case for the Supreme Court drama is:
1. Benefits are being paid by those with interests in the cases before the Court
2. for favorable votes in those cases
One problem is how would you ever prove #2? No one can see into the mind of a justice---would they have voted that way anyways? Did the reasoning change?
Which is why evidence of #1 is so alarming. We no longer can say for certain there is no corruption on the Court.
What you're missing is that the Court produces logical arguments that can stand or fall on their own merits, regardless of anything involving who writes those rulings.
The Court doesn't merely vote. It actually produces logical arguments, and that is central to its work, and yet that core activity of the Court is hardly mentioned by people complaining about all of this behind the scenes drama.
In other words, it doesn't actually matter one bit if the court is corrupt or not, as long as it produces logical opinions.
And if it doesn't produce logical opinions, it doesn't matter one bit if all of the justices are angels.
Oh no, exactly the opposite!
In theory there are all of these stories about the personal lives and motivations and speculations about what's going on with justices.
In reality would actually matters is the reasoning in the opinions that the Court puts out.
I'm pushing for people to drop all of the dramatic theory and instead focus on the substantial work of the Court, the reality of the reasoning in the opinions.
@volkris @JasonPerseus
I think you have a very theoretical view of how the Supreme Court works and should work, and I am coming in from how it actually works.
It absolutely matters if, in fact, the Supreme Court is corrupt. If we can’t agree on that, there’s not going to be much we will.
Thank you for the conversation but we clearly disagree at a fundamental level so I’m going to stop going in circles here with responding.