If you get your news from professional news organizations (PBS, CBC, BBC, ProPublica, Reuters, NYT, The Guardian) you are now in the minority.

Most people now get their news from entertainers and social media:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-news-consumers-are-turning-podcaster-joe-rogan-away-traditional-sources-2025-06-16/

Donald Trump said migrants in Springield, Ohio are eating cats and dogs.

Springfield police said there was no evidence. Professional news organizations sent reporters and said there was no evidence. It didn't matter. Entertainers and social media figures claimed it's true. Many people genuinely believed Trump.

There is a reason why many members of Congress privately say they fear criticizing Elon Musk:

Even if he does not spend a dime against them, Mr. Musk could use his megaphone to target them

Interviews with more than half a dozen House Republicans revealed a widespread wariness of crossing Mr. Musk.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/04/us/politics/musk-house-republicans-trump.html

He can take them down by changing what their constituents see on their X feed.-

What would be the difference at this point?

Professional clarity and honesty.

Though, to be fair, if honesty were a requirement of being a Supreme Court Justice then Clarence Thomas would have been squarely out on his ass many, many years ago.

yeh, I need 50,000 shell companies to manage social media, online media, traditional media, us law, print media, branding, exhibitions, TV media, streaming media, free streaming media, physical media and ad campaigns.

Any anti-human when a "$10 limit for judge is sponsored by" law comes into effect.

Seriously, these judges are being bought for 500k per year. I have no sources on this. I have read news reports of politicians being bought for 10k to 100k. And, for me, 500k would massively change my life.
So 500k to lean to one side, 2 cases per year: I would be set.
The fact that these judgements affect 10k, 100k, 1m people? I would have issue with that, but if it was boiling a frog of minor judgements that don't affect anyone but slowly increased impact and payout... I might not notice.
Especially if they slipped in a few no-impact rulings with extremely high payout (this is the "jackpot" method for training dogs, name coined from - I presume - casinos and gambling).
And by the time I've realised I've been bought out by the bad guys: I would be planning for my exit, the aftermath and my family. I'd be demanding more, selling everything out, and making sure the laws I effect benefit my exit.

It's bought & sold. It's disgusting.
They should be held to higher standards and procedures, with ACTUAL consequences.
I hope - at one point - they were human, and cared, and that's why they were selected.
If they were in-human before they were selected, then the system is broken.
Considering they have the power to reverse or approve government decisions, seems like THEY are the ones people should be voting for and that the president is more of a guiding figure