By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Supreme Court is projected to exhaust its funding on October 18, leading to a public closure of the building, though essential operations will continue. Federal courts are anticipated to run out of funds by October 20, prompting the continuation of essential activities, though staff may not be paid. Jury programs and the Public Access to Court Electronic Records will remain operational, and courts can use existing funds for limited additional work. Individual courts will decide case schedules, and the duration of the shutdown remains uncertain due to ongoing political disagreements.
Read the original article here
Supreme Court to run out of funding due to shutdown, and it’s certainly sparking a flurry of reactions, isn’t it? The initial thought that springs to mind, based on the chatter, seems to be a mixture of disbelief and cynicism, seasoned with a healthy dose of schadenfreude. There’s a prevailing sentiment that, perhaps, the justices will manage, one way or another, with insinuations of private funding and, let’s be frank, a complete lack of concern about their personal financial situation.
It’s pretty clear that many people feel this shutdown might not actually impact the Supreme Court in any significant way. The consensus, or at least the loudest voices, seem to believe the justices have access to alternative financial resources, perhaps through “owners,” or, as some put it less delicately, through bribes and wealthy benefactors. The comments are fairly consistent, with many suggesting that the conservative justices, in particular, will be just fine, and that the shutdown will have little effect on their ability to operate or, for that matter, to continue their lifestyle. There’s a sarcastic tone, with the repeated refrain of, “Oh no, whatever will they do?” as if they are worried about the justices.
The shutdown’s impact, or lack thereof, on the court is viewed through a highly politicized lens. There’s a prevailing narrative that the conservative justices are somehow beyond the reach of normal budgetary constraints, and that their personal finances are secured elsewhere. This is, of course, a serious accusation and one that would need to be investigated and proven, but it underscores the level of distrust. Many consider the court to be operating in an environment of corruption and self-interest. The idea that justices are essentially for sale is a strong, if unsubstantiated, sentiment.
The rhetoric about the Supreme Court’s work is quite blunt, often using strong language like “useless” or “breaking the Constitution.” There’s a clear sense that some see the shutdown as a positive development, perhaps even a chance to curtail the court’s perceived overreach. The idea of the court being an “non-essential service” encapsulates this feeling of the court being, at best, unimportant. The comments also reference specific justices and their alleged financial connections, fueling the perception that the court is shielded from the normal constraints.
It’s hard to miss the recurring theme of private funding. The idea that justices are supported by secret donors and wealthy benefactors is a major subtext. The comments frequently mention individuals like Clarence Thomas and his alleged connections to wealthy donors, as well as the suggestion that some justices may have hidden funds. This reinforces the idea that the court is insulated from the consequences of the shutdown.
The underlying sentiment is clear; a belief that the shutdown will, at worst, be a minor inconvenience for the court. Many seem to be of the opinion that the justices are well-equipped to weather the storm. The idea that the justices will have access to private funding, or that they are being funded in secret, is the key theme. The shutdown is not perceived as a threat. Many appear to see it as a potential benefit, in that it could expose the court’s perceived corruption or limit its influence.
The court’s apparent ability to continue its “essential work” despite the funding issues seems to be another point of contention. The belief is the justices will continue regardless. The sentiment is that the court will find a way to circumvent the shutdown’s constraints, either through private means or by finding ways to keep the money flowing. The potential for a permanent shutdown is not being viewed as a problem, in fact, there appears to be a good number of people who welcome the news.
The lack of sympathy for the justices is evident. The comments are filled with sarcasm and mocking tones, and there seems to be very little concern for their well-being. The shutdown is not seen as a crisis. It’s viewed, if anything, as an opportunity to weaken the court or expose its alleged corruption. The overriding attitude is that the justices are not worthy of concern or sympathy.
In essence, the response to the Supreme Court potentially running out of funding is largely negative. It’s marked by cynicism, distrust, and a deep-seated belief that the justices are insulated from the consequences of the shutdown due to their access to private funding and their perceived corruption. Many people are far from worried. In fact, many welcome the situation, seeing it as an opportunity to limit the court’s power or expose its alleged improprieties.