Latest Breaking News

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(139,487 posts) Tue Jul 14, 2026, 04:20 PM Yesterday

Barrett, Kagan testify on need for more SCOTUS security

Source: News Nation

(NewsNation) — Two Supreme Court justices made a rare appearance before Congress Tuesday as the nation's highest court seeks millions of dollars to increase security amid rising threats against the judiciary.

Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett testified before a House Appropriations panel, marking the first time Supreme Court justices have appeared before Congress since 2019.

The court is requesting $228 million for the next fiscal year, about a 10% increase over the previous year. Nearly $15 million would go toward expanding personal protection for justices, with six more agents assigned to each.

Another $2 million would fund an off-site residential security post aimed at making emergency responses faster and increasing the number of Supreme Court police officers.

Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/barrett-kagan-supreme-court-faces-105051091.html

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Barrett, Kagan testify on need for more SCOTUS security (Original Post) Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Yesterday OP

Surely the donors who corrupted the court in the first place TommyT139 Yesterday #1

That's my thinking rpannier 23 hrs ago #3

The liberal judges can thank Donald Dump for most of the threats they face mdbl Yesterday #2

Security or scrutiny? sakabatou 23 hrs ago #4

The SCOTUS? tavernier 21 hrs ago #5

i don't think they ALL need security increases orleans 20 hrs ago #6

TommyT139

(2,592 posts)

1. Surely the donors who corrupted the court in the first place

Reply to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Tue Jul 14, 2026, 04:28 PM

Yesterday

...could chip in.

American tax dollars are busy paying for the increased costs the Rethug 6 helped Trump institute.

rpannier

(25,025 posts)

3. That's my thinking

Reply to TommyT139 (Reply #1)

Tue Jul 14, 2026, 09:14 PM

23 hrs ago

If they weren't so corrupt, and such toadies for a mentyb in the oval office, we might not be in this mess
Let Musk and Thiel foot their bill

mdbl

(9,153 posts)

2. The liberal judges can thank Donald Dump for most of the threats they face

Reply to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Tue Jul 14, 2026, 04:29 PM

Yesterday

The other six just want someone to protect all the money that special interests send them.

sakabatou

(46,631 posts)

4. Security or scrutiny?

Reply to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Tue Jul 14, 2026, 09:27 PM

23 hrs ago

Who knew becoming Dump’s bootlickers would backfire?

Oh wait, everyone.

tavernier

(14,604 posts)

5. The SCOTUS?

Reply to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Tue Jul 14, 2026, 10:39 PM

21 hrs ago

Oh you mean the people who are our last line of defense against a government run amok and threatening to destroy our constitution and republic?

Last I looked they were three very tired and battered ladies. It resembled the Alamo. They await the cavalry daily, but hope seems to be running out against the Santa Roberts army.

orleans

(37,619 posts)

6. i don't think they ALL need security increases

Reply to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Wed Jul 15, 2026, 12:33 AM

20 hrs ago

thomas can just hop in his billionaire gifted RV and drive away (but will he take the crazy missus along for the ride?)

alito can just fly another one of his don't tread on me flags (or whatever he was flying) and that should send the emergency bat signal to his neighbors to build higher fences so they don't have to look at his fucking ugly face

kavanaugh can just kick back with a keg or two and by the time he wakes up the following afternoon he won't remember a thing

gorsuch can offer to sell them some property in exchange for their participation in a seance so he can have a little chitchat with mommy

roberts can hide out in his own personal home confessional where he can spend some time repenting and begging god to forgive him for helping to ruin the country. we'll even throw in a new $15.00 rosery

Reply to this discussion