Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Thailand News and Discussion Forum | ASEANNOW

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Has the US Supreme Court sold out to the GOP?

Featured Replies

  • Popular Post

THE ROBERTS COURT IS HOPELESSLY CORRUPT.

In a partisan attempt to keep Republicans in power, SCOTUS voted to encourage red states to disenfranchise people of color. Alito leads the corruption. In addition to his manipulations, and those by other corrupt Justices, Chief Justice Roberts ignores his own conflicts by failing to disclose millions of income from his wife’s business.

SCOTUS IS HOPELESSLY CORRUPT.

Responding to a question on Sunday’s “Meet the Press” about whether he supported adding seats to the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in light of its ruling that gutted the Voting Rights Act, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) responded: “There’s a corrupt shadow hanging over,” the court.

Sen. Booker stopped short of saying he would support expanding the number of SCOTUS justices, but said he was leading efforts to reform it via term limits.

“It’s a corrupt court,” said Sen. Booker. “The highest court in our land has the lowest ethics laws. I lead one of the pieces of legislation with Sen. Whitehouse and others to give term limits to Supreme Court members that could go a long way in carrying this. It is a corrupt court, and in my opinion, it is a court that needs reform.”

On the Callais v. Louisiana ruling, which now makes it prohibitively difficult to create congressional districts where people of color can elect candidates of their choice, Sen. Booker said SCOTUS knowingly ruled in ways that depleted political representation for Black voters.

“Obviously this decision would result – and they knew this – in stripping political power and representation from African-Americans,” said Sen. Booker. “The Voting Rights Act was perhaps one of the most important acts in the history of our country, in securing our democratic ideals, that all are created equal – all are imbued with 0certain unalienable rights. And what they have done right now is sent us backwards in time, back to the 1870s and 80s, when the South and southern legislators – through terrorism, intimidation and worse – were able to stop African Americans from having representation in Congress.”

https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/sen-cory-booker-theres-a-corrupt-shadow-hanging-over-the-supreme-court/

Under Roberts’ predecessor, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the majority of justices – both left-leaning and right-leaning – saw efforts by political donors to set the agenda for political parties and elected officials as an improper corruption of the political process.

As the Rehnquist Court once concluded, corruption occurs “not only as quid pro quo agreements, but also as undue influence on an officeholder’s judgment, and the appearance of such influence.”

The Roberts Court’s most notorious acquiescence to money in politics was Citizens United. Issued in 2010, the Citizens United decision decided that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend as much money as they want on political ads in any American election.

Limiting corporate spending on political ads has “a chilling effect” on corporate free speech, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, and the government’s “anti-corruption interest” does not trump that concern.

https://kentuckylantern.com/2024/08/05/this-supreme-court-has-redefined-the-meaning-of-corruption/

political-corruption.jpg

Edited by spidermike007

  • Replies 61
  • Views 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • spidermike007
    spidermike007

    I believe super pacs and the multitude of organizations Israel uses to funnel millions to US political causes is both morally bankrupt, corrupt and very wrong. More evidence that America is broken. An

  • BLMFem
    BLMFem

    Do you believe that billionaires should be allowed to control the outcome of elections?

  • spidermike007
    spidermike007

    No. Absolutely not the system is way too corrupt as it is, and most American billionaires don't have much in the way of a moral barometer.

Posted Images

  • Popular Post

I have a question for you: Have you ever read the relevant sections of the 1965 Civil Rights Act? I think not. There is nothing in the Act that mandates the creation of predominantly Black districts. It simply states that one cannot discriminate based on race. I'm not sure how the Democrats over the years have interpreted this as a requirement for states to create majority Black districts. Following their logic, states would also need to create distinct districts for Hispanic and Asian populations.

11 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

The Roberts Court’s most notorious acquiescence to money in politics was Citizens United. Issued in 2010, the Citizens United decision decided that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend as much money as they want on political ads in any American election.

Do you believe that people should not be allowed to pool their money to fund a poltical add?

  • Author
  • Popular Post
1 minute ago, Effective altruism said:

Do you believe that people should not be allowed to pool their money to fund a poltical add?

I believe super pacs and the multitude of organizations Israel uses to funnel millions to US political causes is both morally bankrupt, corrupt and very wrong. More evidence that America is broken. And the Supreme Court is showing major desperation. They are pathetic and an embarrassment.

Just now, spidermike007 said:

I believe super pacs and the multitude of organizations Israel uses to funnel millions to US political causes is both morally bankrupt, corrupt and very wrong. More evidence that America is broken. And the Supreme Court is showing major desperation. They are pathetic and an embarrassment.

You failed to answer the question. Do you believe that people have the right to pull their money to make a campaign add? Do you know the background of the Citizens United case?

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a landmark 2010 Supreme Court case that transformed U.S. campaign finance law by ruling that the government cannot restrict independent political expenditures by corporations, labor unions, and non-profit organizations, equating political spending with protected free speech

12 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

I believe super pacs and the multitude of organizations Israel uses to funnel millions to US political causes is both morally bankrupt, corrupt and very wrong. More evidence that America is broken. And the Supreme Court is showing major desperation. They are pathetic and an embarrassment.

You should read this link

Vox
No image preview

It’s time for liberals to get over Citizens United

Repealing the controversial decision is a pipe dream. And there are more promising avenues for campaign-finance reform.

Most widespread in liberal circles is the idea that Citizens opened the floodgates to massive amounts of corporate spending in politics. But as many legal scholars have argued, the floodgates were already open. Citizens is not responsible for the massive amounts of money showered on favored candidates. Nor is it responsible for the rise of so-called dark money in politics.

  • Popular Post
1 hour ago, Effective altruism said:

Do you believe that people should not be allowed to pool their money to fund a poltical add?

Do you believe that billionaires should be allowed to control the outcome of elections?

  • Author
  • Popular Post
1 hour ago, Effective altruism said:

You failed to answer the question. Do you believe that people have the right to pull their money to make a campaign add? Do you know the background of the Citizens United case?

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a landmark 2010 Supreme Court case that transformed U.S. campaign finance law by ruling that the government cannot restrict independent political expenditures by corporations, labor unions, and non-profit organizations, equating political spending with protected free speech

No. I do not believe that large organizations should be able to poll money for political causes.

  • Popular Post
32 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

Do you believe that billionaires should be allowed to control the outcome of elections?

NO!

But TRUMP does!

  • Author
  • Popular Post
33 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

Do you believe that billionaires should be allowed to control the outcome of elections?

No. Absolutely not the system is way too corrupt as it is, and most American billionaires don't have much in the way of a moral barometer.

  • Popular Post
7 hours ago, BLMFem said:

Do you believe that billionaires should be allowed to control the outcome of elections?

Only the ones that support Dems or the SWP

  • Popular Post
8 hours ago, Effective altruism said:

I have a question for you: Have you ever read the relevant sections of the 1965 Civil Rights Act? I think not. There is nothing in the Act that mandates the creation of predominantly Black districts. It simply states that one cannot discriminate based on race. I'm not sure how the Democrats over the years have interpreted this as a requirement for states to create majority Black districts. Following their logic, states would also need to create distinct districts for Hispanic and Asian populations.

8 hours ago, Effective altruism said:

You failed to answer the question. Do you believe that people have the right to pull their money to make a campaign add? Do you know the background of the Citizens United case?

Thats because Mr. Cut and Paste knows nothing about the subject he is screeching about.

  • Popular Post
On 5/17/2026 at 9:36 AM, BLMFem said:

Do you believe that billionaires should be allowed to control the outcome of elections?

Can you please name the billionaires who are controlling election outcomes? 

On 5/17/2026 at 10:07 AM, spidermike007 said:

No. I do not believe that large organizations should be able to poll money for political causes.

Do you not believe that people can come together to pool their money for campaign ads? Why?

On 5/17/2026 at 4:48 PM, Yagoda said:

Thats because Mr. Cut and Paste knows nothing about the subject he is screeching about.

He avoids deep dives into any topic.

  • Popular Post
5 minutes ago, Effective altruism said:

Can you please name the billionaires who are controlling election outcomes? 

All of them? Can't be bothered, do your own research.

However, I can name a few.

Elon Musk.

Miriam Adelson.

Charles Koch.

Hope this helps!thumbsup

2 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

All of them? Can't be bothered, do your own research.

However, I can name a few.

Elon Musk.

Miriam Adelson.

Charles Koch.

Hope this helps!thumbsup

How did they specifically manipulate the election? Which election did they influence?

  • Popular Post
9 minutes ago, Effective altruism said:

Do you not believe that people can come together to pool their money for campaign ads? Why?

If you're gonna use a straw man argument, may I suggest putting just a little more effort into making it less laughably obvious.😂

  • Popular Post
4 minutes ago, Effective altruism said:

How did they specifically manipulate the election? Which election did they influence?

Why are you okay with rampant corruption? Why don't you oppose crime?

1 minute ago, BLMFem said:

If you're gonna use a straw man argument, may I suggest putting just a little more effort into making it less laughably obvious.😂

Why is this considered a strawman argument? Do you not believe that a group of citizens can pool their money to create an election ad? If so, why?

1 minute ago, BLMFem said:

Why are you okay with rampant corruption? Why don't you oppose crime?

Which corruption are you referring to? Your debating style resembles that of a religious cult.

  • Popular Post
6 minutes ago, Effective altruism said:

Which corruption are you referring to? Your debating style resembles that of a religious cult.

And yours resembles a frantic person, a troll in a basement. But that's okay, it's your life.thumbsup

  • Popular Post
2 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

And yours resembles a frantic person, a troll in a basement. But that's okay, it's your life.thumbsup

You are the "frantic person" in this conversation. I am trying to stick to facts and substance.

  • Author
  • Popular Post
1 hour ago, Effective altruism said:

Can you please name the billionaires who are controlling election outcomes? 

Alelson, Musk, Euhlein, Griffin, Hoffman, Bigelow, Soros, and so many others.

It took roughly 100,000 people donating to political campaigns in the 2024 election cycle to equal the average billionaire’s political giving, a new analysis of campaign contributions showed Monday.

Billionaire money in politics has skyrocketed since 2010, when the Supreme Court decided its landmark Citizens United case that ruled campaign donations could not be limited. In the 2008 presidential election, billionaires made up 0.3% of political spending, the Times reported. By 2024, that percentage was up to 19%—a 6,000% increase. Billionaire President Donald Trump has elevated billionaires to high-level positions in the federal government or in unofficial but influential positions. After he took office, Trump tapped nearly a dozen billionaires for federal government positions, including creating a new government agency (the Department of Government Efficiency) for top donor Elon Musk to run. He also named WWE’s Linda McMahon, a top Trump donor, as Education Secretary, Howard Lutnick as Commerce Secretary and Jared Isaacman as NASA administrator. And it’s not just federal candidates who are being propped up by the ultrawealthy. The Times analysis Monday found that big-time billionaire donors are supporting Congressional candidates, local candidates and statewide initiatives with millions of dollars. Reid Hoffman, the co-founder of LinkedIn, gave more than $2 million to a super PAC supporting Democrat Mike Johnston for mayor of Denver. Billionaire Robert Bigelow helped get Joe Lombardo elected as governor of Nevada, and candidates for Wisconsin Supreme Court were backed by Musk, Diane Hendricks, the Uihlein family, George Soros and Pritzker. Matt Brouillette, a political adviser to major donor and billionaire Jeff Yass, has told the Times his client wades into local issues because statewide offices are often stepping stones to ones with broader reach. “We’re playing the long game,” he said.

This should not be allowed. America is a very corrupt nation. This is legalized corruption, largely due to the bent and very broken Supreme Court. America is in trouble.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2026/03/09/the-huge-billionaire-election-influence-in-numbers-nearly-one-fifth-of-all-donations/

10 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Alelson, Musk, Euhlein, Griffin, Hoffman, Bigelow, Soros, and so many others.

It took roughly 100,000 people donating to political campaigns in the 2024 election cycle to equal the average billionaire’s political giving, a new analysis of campaign contributions showed Monday.

Billionaire money in politics has skyrocketed since 2010, when the Supreme Court decided its landmark Citizens United case that ruled campaign donations could not be limited. In the 2008 presidential election, billionaires made up 0.3% of political spending, the Times reported. By 2024, that percentage was up to 19%—a 6,000% increase. Billionaire President Donald Trump has elevated billionaires to high-level positions in the federal government or in unofficial but influential positions. After he took office, Trump tapped nearly a dozen billionaires for federal government positions, including creating a new government agency (the Department of Government Efficiency) for top donor Elon Musk to run. He also named WWE’s Linda McMahon, a top Trump donor, as Education Secretary, Howard Lutnick as Commerce Secretary and Jared Isaacman as NASA administrator. And it’s not just federal candidates who are being propped up by the ultrawealthy. The Times analysis Monday found that big-time billionaire donors are supporting Congressional candidates, local candidates and statewide initiatives with millions of dollars. Reid Hoffman, the co-founder of LinkedIn, gave more than $2 million to a super PAC supporting Democrat Mike Johnston for mayor of Denver. Billionaire Robert Bigelow helped get Joe Lombardo elected as governor of Nevada, and candidates for Wisconsin Supreme Court were backed by Musk, Diane Hendricks, the Uihlein family, George Soros and Pritzker. Matt Brouillette, a political adviser to major donor and billionaire Jeff Yass, has told the Times his client wades into local issues because statewide offices are often stepping stones to ones with broader reach. “We’re playing the long game,” he said.

This should not be allowed. America is a very corrupt nation. This is legalized corruption, largely due to the bent and very broken Supreme Court. America is in trouble.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2026/03/09/the-huge-billionaire-election-influence-in-numbers-nearly-one-fifth-of-all-donations/

Harris and Hillary spent significantly more than Trump, yet they still lost. Explain that.

  • Author
  • Popular Post
2 minutes ago, Effective altruism said:

Harris and Hillary spent significantly more than Trump, yet they still lost. Explain that.

They were both terrible candidates. Plain and simple. The dems need to do better.

Trump was elected by default. He is a street trash imbecile.

14 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Alelson, Musk, Euhlein, Griffin, Hoffman, Bigelow, Soros, and so many others.

It took roughly 100,000 people donating to political campaigns in the 2024 election cycle to equal the average billionaire’s political giving, a new analysis of campaign contributions showed Monday.

Billionaire money in politics has skyrocketed since 2010, when the Supreme Court decided its landmark Citizens United case that ruled campaign donations could not be limited. In the 2008 presidential election, billionaires made up 0.3% of political spending, the Times reported. By 2024, that percentage was up to 19%—a 6,000% increase. Billionaire President Donald Trump has elevated billionaires to high-level positions in the federal government or in unofficial but influential positions. After he took office, Trump tapped nearly a dozen billionaires for federal government positions, including creating a new government agency (the Department of Government Efficiency) for top donor Elon Musk to run. He also named WWE’s Linda McMahon, a top Trump donor, as Education Secretary, Howard Lutnick as Commerce Secretary and Jared Isaacman as NASA administrator. And it’s not just federal candidates who are being propped up by the ultrawealthy. The Times analysis Monday found that big-time billionaire donors are supporting Congressional candidates, local candidates and statewide initiatives with millions of dollars. Reid Hoffman, the co-founder of LinkedIn, gave more than $2 million to a super PAC supporting Democrat Mike Johnston for mayor of Denver. Billionaire Robert Bigelow helped get Joe Lombardo elected as governor of Nevada, and candidates for Wisconsin Supreme Court were backed by Musk, Diane Hendricks, the Uihlein family, George Soros and Pritzker. Matt Brouillette, a political adviser to major donor and billionaire Jeff Yass, has told the Times his client wades into local issues because statewide offices are often stepping stones to ones with broader reach. “We’re playing the long game,” he said.

This should not be allowed. America is a very corrupt nation. This is legalized corruption, largely due to the bent and very broken Supreme Court. America is in trouble.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2026/03/09/the-huge-billionaire-election-influence-in-numbers-nearly-one-fifth-of-all-donations/

I can also copy and paste.

https://sites.psu.edu/siowfa16/2016/12/01/is-money-the-deciding-factor-in-elections/

money is not the deciding factor in winning general elections, though it plays a complex role. Decades of research indicate that while the candidate who spends the most usually wins, this is often because winning attracts money, not the other way around—donors tend to back candidates who are already likely to succeed due to name recognition, party affiliation, or district leanings.

Just now, spidermike007 said:

They were both terrible candidates. Plain and simple. The dems need to do better.

Trump was elected by default. He is a street trash imbecile.

Thus, money is not the deciding factor.

@spidermike007 We need to return to the original discussion. You claimed that SCOTUS is corrupt by saying they gutted the Voting Rights Act. Let's examine the relevant section of the Voting Rights Act.

(a)No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 10303(f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b).

(b)A violation of subsection (a) is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have

How did the Democrats manage to turn this into Black people having the right to their own gerrymandered districts based on race? Activist judges?

@spidermike007 Since Obama, the Democrats have been calling the Supreme Court corrupt. The problem with the Democrats is that if they don't get their way, they claim the system is broken. This is why you have many Democrats making noise about packing the courts and changing the entire judiciary. All they want is a judicial system that will rubber stamp whatever they desire. They want the courts to function as another branch of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.