In the wake of the "Citizens United" case, a surprising development (may have) occurred. It appears that a new group of lobbyists has begun to approach the august body occupying the very pinnacle of United States jurisprudence.
First suspicions of the new policy may have arisen from the discreet opening of several new offices on K Street in Washington with nondescript names like "Committee For Freedom" and "Liberty For Justice". They are staffed by (mostly) men wearing bespoke suits and guarded smiles who avoid encounters with the press and travel about in dark sedans with tinted windows. These sedans have been observed (by reputable conspiracy theorists) traveling between these recently opened offices and the Supreme Court building, but no comment by any party has been publicly released to members of the press.
"Citizens United", as readers of this article must certainly know, paved the way for unlimited amounts of money by undisclosed sources to influence public elections in this country. The controversial 5 to 4 decision by the Supreme Court effectively ruled that money is speech, corporations are people, and that poor people should "just shut up" (see: majority opinion addendum, pg. 68).
What readers may not know, as the secret internal mechanisms of The Court are very closely held within that body (see: Star Chamber), is that the Supremes have decided, in camera (probably by a 5 to 4 vote), that the ruling should apply to The Court itself.
The dignity of The Court is as yet unsullied by the imposition of televised proceedings (no one need know that a Supreme may occasionally have to remove a troublesome booger from an offended nostril or that a cheek may need lifting from the bench to relieve uncomfortable gas pressure in the bowel. These are, after all, largely dignitaries of a certain age.), but audio recordings have been allowed as a concession to the modern age. (also, murky crayon sketches)
But, as does gas, so do internal deliberations of The Court sometimes leak out. Clerks, secretaries, janitors called in to clean up spilled Maalox, etc. occasionally gossip amongst themselves in public where they might be overheard by an enterprising and zealous journalist (with a covert recording device).
Also, that same zealot newsperson might note certain physical manifestations that provide clues to otherwise unknowable deliberations of the court. For instance, could the large bruise observed on the forehead of Justice Sotomayor (as she was seen leaving the building's side exit) have resulted from banging her own head against the wall during deliberations of the lobbying issue? And does the fact that Justice Thomas drove away after The Court's summer recess (see: kindergarten, recess) in a new, red Corvette and with a smile on his face indicate that he was on the winning side of the issue and personally benefited from the decision?
We may never know the absolute and provable truth, as the Supreme Court is answerable to the people of the U.S. only through action by the Congress of the United States. And this Congress, as we all know, is incapable of any actions other than those of self-preservation, partisan rancor, and hopeless boondoggle. (Does that sound too harsh?)
(Note to self: try to avoid, in the future, the use of run-on sentences, excessive parentheses, and distractive commas.)
(Note #2: see legal dept. before publication.)