A Charity Tied to the Supreme Court Offers Donors Access to the Justices

Prince.Skeletor

Don’t Be Like He-Man
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
27,626
Reputation
-7,087
Daps
53,014
Reppin
Bucktown
The charity, the Supreme Court Historical Society, is ostensibly independent of the judicial branch of government, but in reality the two are inextricably intertwined. The charity’s stated mission is straightforward: to preserve the court’s history and educate the public about the court’s importance in American life. But over the years the society has also become a vehicle for those seeking access to nine of the most reclusive and powerful people in the nation. The justices attend the society’s annual black-tie dinner soirees, where they mingle with donors and thank them for their generosity, and serve as masters of ceremonies to more regular society-sponsored lectures or reenactments of famous cases.

The society has raised more than $23 million over the past two decades. Because of its nonprofit status, it does not have to publicly disclose its donors — and declined when asked to do so. But The New York Times was able to identify the sources behind more than $10.7 million raised since 2003, the first year for which relevant records were available.

At least $6.4 million — or 60% — came from corporations, special interest groups, or lawyers and firms that argued cases before the court, according to an analysis of archived historical society newsletters and publicly available records that detail grants given to the society by foundations. Of that, at least $4.7 million came from individuals or entities in years when they had a pending interest in a federal court case on appeal or at the high court, records show.

The donors include corporations like Chevron, which gave while embroiled in a 2021 Supreme Court case involving efforts by cities to hold the oil company accountable for its role in global warming. Veteran Supreme Court litigators gave while representing clients before the court that included Tyson Foods and the Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China.

Virtually no one interviewed by the Times, including critics of the society’s fundraising practices, said they believed that donations to the society had any bearing on cases before the justices. For one thing, many of the donors are already part of the Supreme Court’s insular and clubby world, where former clerks frequently socialize with and argue cases before their former bosses, and where the justices steadfastly refuse to televise their arguments and specifically reserve only a fraction of the court’s 439 seats for members of the public.

Carter G. Phillips, a Supreme Court litigator at Sidley Austin and the society’s treasurer, said it never occurred to him that anyone would use the society as a way to buy face time or favor with the justices, in part because the society’s events generally afford only fleeting contact with them.

But as polls show public approval of the court at an all-time low, amid widespread concern that the institution has become increasingly politicized, even some supporters said it might be time to rethink the Supreme Court Historical Society’s reliance on secretive private donations. The long-obscure society recently found itself in the spotlight after the anti-abortion leader, the Rev. Rob Schenck, told the Times how he had made the society and its events part of his campaign to embolden the justices to take unapologetic stands against abortion.

Charles Fried, who served as solicitor general in the Reagan administration and is now a professor at Harvard Law School, said he was so “horrified” by Schenck’s use of the society that he might no longer donate. And he said that, while he did not believe that donations influenced the justices, for the sake of appearances a charity so closely tied to the court should not solicit money from corporations and other special interests while they had matters before it.

“It’s disgusting,” he said. “Many of the people who contribute have the same reasons I do. You go to a cocktail party and support a good cause. But it turns out that for some people it’s not that innocent. And I think the justices are a victim of that.”


 

FrontoBama

U Can’t Reach The Sun
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
2,409
Reputation
835
Daps
13,015
Reppin
Knicks & Dimes
Good short read, OP.

You can see how designated social roles develop within the bounds of plutocracy. nikkas can’t get in those rooms, but we buy the gasoline, corn and medicine that send their lobbyists to these meetings.

As such, Blacks take on these ineffectual and benign roles in society that mimick our stunted lobbying capacity...We become the silent,loyal servant grasping at scraps (ideological convergence surrounding abortion and things like that) and swallowing his misgivings. a spook

These misgivings lead to the disgruntled,disenfranchised negroes that resign themselves to living a subsistent existence under white dominion as a plumber or truck driver or some and in TLR saying how much they hate and want to kill hood nikkas and marry white women.

Slave ship therapy.
 

Prince.Skeletor

Don’t Be Like He-Man
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
27,626
Reputation
-7,087
Daps
53,014
Reppin
Bucktown
Money talks and influences the highest positions of power. At least people are finally starting to see that realization.
That realization is useless if nobody cares.
I guarantee this thread won’t be doing no numbers.

And I guarantee very few media outlets will be talking about this & very few regular peeps.
 
Top