WASHINGTON—Admitting that he had never been more conflicted about a ruling in his life, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was reportedly torn Monday over a case in which both sides offered compelling scuba trips. “While there’s a strong historical precedent for a lavish excursion to Bali, the plaintiff has instead…
  • sunzu@kbin.run
    98·
    3 days ago

    Poor thing is titan of American jurisprudence but makes about same salary as 30 year old big tech developer…

    I would be miffed too tbh

  • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.orgEnglish
    65·
    3 days ago

    Maybe we can use this?

    Since bribery gratuities are legal now, apparently, and the Supreme Court is legislating everything from the bench, maybe we can pool a sort of PAC and put together a prize sheet for different positive things we want. If they rule for those, they get the prize indicated. Kind of like the prizes you’d get for selling certain thresholds during school fundraisers.

    Also kind of like the Criss Points system:

    • sunzu@kbin.run
      47·
      3 days ago

      Even if all the peasant in US united and pitched in, out collective buying power would still NOT be enough v top 10% but like even top 1%

      Think about that.

      • TheGoldenGod@lemmy.worldEnglish
        23·
        3 days ago

        Which is sad, but should remind some people it was a similar situation regarding the French Revolution. The less you have, the less you have to lose.

        • j4k3@lemmy.worldEnglish
          8·
          3 days ago

          The French lived in dense areas with power centers nearby. We live in endless sprawl with a need to mobilize the guillotine, while our houses are made of artillery target toothpicks for a reason.

      • Sanctus@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        3 days ago

        We dont need our buying power to match the 1%. We need the density of our group to outmatch whoever happens to be in the Supreme Court Building at the time.

      • shutz@lemmy.caEnglish
        3·
        2 days ago

        But the bribe amounts have very little to do with how unfathomably rich the “donors” are! If you look at all those bribes, the amounts are still within the realm of what the 99% could put together.

        But I don’t even think it would cost the 99% that much, because it would force the 1% to up their game (in other words, there’d be bribe inflation) until the 99% can’t follow suit, which means the 99% wouldn’t even need to pay, in the end. But the higher price would make some bribers think twice, which might lead to less bribery happening.

      • thejml@lemm.eeEnglish
        6·
        3 days ago

        Not about the SCOTUS, but there was a report a while back showing that many senators votes were purchased for only a few grand… we could probably swing that.

      • ignirtoq@fedia.io
        13·
        3 days ago

        There’s also the question of disposable income. Top X% have more wealth and income than us, and that excess is basically all disposable. Most of the income and “wealth” of the bottom of the economic ladder is tied up in survival needs, so it’s even less of a possibility than at first glance.