Chief Justice John Roberts' wife made $10.3 million in commissions from elite law firms

[dank69]

perhaps more important than avoiding impropriety itself is avoiding the appearance of impropriety.

can we prove that this influenced roberts in any way? no. and it may not have at all. but it calls into question his handling of past or potentially future cases with law firms that have been connected to his wife (and therefore, financially, him as well)

Impropriety doesn't matter even a tiny little bit for Republicans, let alone appearance of impropriety. Stuff like that only matters for Democrats.

 

[pmv]

This also struck me as relevant

Rage-filled Samuel Alito Baffled His Fairness Is Being Questioned

You must respect my authority, justice insists.

nymag.com

The guy seems to lack all self-awareness.

 

[ivwshane]

This also struck me as relevant

Rage-filled Samuel Alito Baffled His Fairness Is Being Questioned

You must respect my authority, justice insists.

nymag.com

The guy seems to lack all self-awareness.

The guy is delusional and like many on the right, completely detached from reality.

 

[cytg111]

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

 

[soundforbjt]

This also struck me as relevant

Rage-filled Samuel Alito Baffled His Fairness Is Being Questioned

You must respect my authority, justice insists.

nymag.com

The guy seems to lack all self-awareness.

It’s good to be the King

 

[HomerJS]

Is his wife not able to earn income? Because if she is, why would you assume he benefited from a payment to his wife?

This isn't me trying to defend corruption, it's me showing you why that ain't going to happen.

Are we also to assume no lawyer of law firm that worked with Jane Robers EVER had business before the court? That is highly unlikely. John Robers should have recused himself from ALL those cases.

Think he did?

Know what our biggest problem is? We gave too much credit too much credit to SCOTUS when the first corruption story broke by not making an all-purpose SCOTUS corruption thread.

 

[Sunburn74]

Is his wife not able to earn income? Because if she is, why would you assume he benefited from a payment to his wife?

This isn't me trying to defend corruption, it's me showing you why that ain't going to happen.

It's about impartiality. He should have disclosed that his wife earns money from law firms that plead cases in front of him and should have recused himself from these cases. I assure you in any lower court they would have done that.

Imagine you were like a high up business executive for a company. There are two other companies trying to sell you guys similar products. You can only pick one and it's a major deal with a lot of money/profits involved. However one company is your wife's company. She works there and is like one of the major people in that company, though she is not in that same exact dept. She knows the people who are making the pitch to you and has even had lunches and dinner with them (where perhaps she gave them tips on how to approach you about selling the product). Even if they had the better product and sales pitch, if your boss found out that your wife worked for them and you never mentioned at any point will probably be a little pissed off and will start to question whether you were truly thinking with the company's best interest at heart when you made the choice or whether you had a particularly colored and slanted view because of your obvious conflict of interest.

No one is saying his wife can't be a lawyer and no one is saying he can't be a judge. Simply the ethical thing is to disclose when these things conflict and to step away when they do. There are lots of cases to weigh in on and lots of SCOTUS judges. If one steps away, it's not like decisions can't be made.

 

[Thump553]

Regular government employees would have to recuse in similar circumstances, why not judges?

Judges do-they have a very strict code of ethics. Supreme Court JUSTICES do not as the Court has determined that they are not bound by any code of ethics. They almost certainly would hold that any effort to impose a code of ethics upon the justices is an unconstitutional limitation upon the Court's power.

The only solution is to impeach the Justices like Roberts, Thomas, etc. and replace them. Given that impeachment is essentially useless in our hyper partisan atmosphere (witness the results of Trump's multiple clear misconducts) good luck with that.

The apathy of the majority of the persons eligible to vote is the main reason we are in such a shitty situation.

 

[Sunburn74]

Their budget and protection should be eliminated until they submit to a code of ethics. It seems like a pretty straightforward thing to do and could probably even be done with a simple budget reconciliation. No money and no protection for them until this changes.

 

[soundforbjt]

Their budget and protection should be eliminated until they submit to a code of ethics. It seems like a pretty straightforward thing to do and could probably even be done with a simple budget reconciliation. No money and no protection for them until this changes.

With their money they can hire their own protection and the salary they get is apparently peanuts compared to what they’re not declaring,etc. So I don’t see how this would be much of a punishment even if it did happen. It would only hurt the honest judges.

 

[Thump553]

Their budget and protection should be eliminated until they submit to a code of ethics. It seems like a pretty straightforward thing to do and could probably even be done with a simple budget reconciliation. No money and no protection for them until this changes.

Eliminating their budget would clearly be unconstitutional. If push came to shove however, how could the Court enforce such a ruling.

If this becomes a public outcry long enough and loud enough, then maybe the Court would "voluntarily" submit to a code of ethics. It should have some teeth and should be the same as every other federal judge has to comply with. Then we won't have these BS arguments as to whether a justice's wife gets 10M from counsel that appear before the court (hint-it's not-for any non-Supreme Court Justice.

As someone who practiced law his entire adult life, the brazen lack of ethics and the blatant hubris of several present members of this Court is disgusting.

 

[senseamp]

These guys think they are America's ayatollahs.

 

[HomerJS]

Eliminating their budget would clearly be unconstitutional. If push came to shove however, how could the Court enforce such a ruling.

If this becomes a public outcry long enough and loud enough, then maybe the Court would "voluntarily" submit to a code of ethics. It should have some teeth and should be the same as every other federal judge has to comply with. Then we won't have these BS arguments as to whether a justice's wife gets 10M from counsel that appear before the court (hint-it's not-for any non-Supreme Court Justice.

As someone who practiced law his entire adult life, the brazen lack of ethics and the blatant hubris of several present members of this Court is disgusting.

Would it? What has been their stance of things that not EXPLICTLY enumerated? Where in the Constitution does it state "Thou shalt fund the Judicial Branch"? Did we not get that answer in the Dobbs case?

Senate can refuse to authorize their funding. It's not criminal so who's going to impeach the members of the Senate who refuse to fund them? If justices object then just sue. They will of course have to recuse themselves.

See where this leaves us?

This will all go away of those arrogant fucks just subject themselves to the SAME ethics rules and laws as lower level federal judges.

What's wrong with that??

 

[uclaLabrat]

These guys think they are America's ayatollahs.

Robes look the same TBH.

 

[nickqt]

perhaps more important than avoiding impropriety itself is avoiding the appearance of impropriety.

can we prove that this influenced roberts in any way? no. and it may not have at all. but it calls into question his handling of past or potentially future cases with law firms that have been connected to his wife (and therefore, financially, him as well)

Seriously? His wife is part of his household, he benefits from her income. I can't do business at my job with any company connected to anyone in my extended family. She can make income but he shouldn't be allowed to rule in cases where he or his household has a financial interest in one of the parties. This is very basic conflict of interest stuff.

She can also choose to make money in a non-corrupt way.

Being 1 of 9 people who get to make decisions for 330million people, I think it is important to make sure you aren't even given off the appearance of impropriety. If that means you're partner not working a certain job, that's the sacrifice.

Are we also to assume no lawyer of law firm that worked with Jane Robers EVER had business before the court? That is highly unlikely. John Robers should have recused himself from ALL those cases.

Think he did?

Know what our biggest problem is? We gave too much credit too much credit to SCOTUS when the first corruption story broke by not making an all-purpose SCOTUS corruption thread.

It's about impartiality. He should have disclosed that his wife earns money from law firms that plead cases in front of him and should have recused himself from these cases. I assure you in any lower court they would have done that.

Imagine you were like a high up business executive for a company. There are two other companies trying to sell you guys similar products. You can only pick one and it's a major deal with a lot of money/profits involved. However one company is your wife's company. She works there and is like one of the major people in that company, though she is not in that same exact dept. She knows the people who are making the pitch to you and has even had lunches and dinner with them (where perhaps she gave them tips on how to approach you about selling the product). Even if they had the better product and sales pitch, if your boss found out that your wife worked for them and you never mentioned at any point will probably be a little pissed off and will start to question whether you were truly thinking with the company's best interest at heart when you made the choice or whether you had a particularly colored and slanted view because of your obvious conflict of interest.

No one is saying his wife can't be a lawyer and no one is saying he can't be a judge. Simply the ethical thing is to disclose when these things conflict and to step away when they do. There are lots of cases to weigh in on and lots of SCOTUS judges. If one steps away, it's not like decisions can't be made.

Our corrupt political system is THE feature, not a bug or an accident. It has been bought and paid for, and the investments are just now starting to really pay off.

The Supreme Court doesn't give one fuck about it and thinking they are going to recuse themselves is delusional. They know who paid for their seats.

Y'all are trying to fight fascism's shadow. Those judges who y'all think care, don't care. It's all an act. While y'all are using words and logic and reasoning, they're planning on how they can award their benefactors more wealth while taking away more rights from everyone else.

I see a bunch of check-mate arguments being made, and the fascists ain't even playing chess.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Our corrupt political system is THE feature, not a bug or an accident. It has been bought and paid for, and the investments are just now starting to really pay off.

The Supreme Court doesn't give one fuck about it and thinking they are going to recuse themselves is delusional. They know who paid for their seats.

Y'all are trying to fight fascism's shadow. Those judges who y'all think care, don't care. It's all an act. While y'all are using words and logic and reasoning, they're planning on how they can award their benefactors more wealth while taking away more rights from everyone else.

I see a bunch of check-mate arguments being made, and the fascists ain't even playing chess.

It's clear they don't care. You asked why Roberts' wife wouldn't be able to earn money on her own doing the job she currently does. I attempted to explain why. Now, whether SCOTUS cares about (they don't) and abides by that principle (they don't) are separate. But that is the principle itself

 

[Pens1566]

Eliminating their budget would clearly be unconstitutional. If push came to shove however, how could the Court enforce such a ruling.

If this becomes a public outcry long enough and loud enough, then maybe the Court would "voluntarily" submit to a code of ethics. It should have some teeth and should be the same as every other federal judge has to comply with. Then we won't have these BS arguments as to whether a justice's wife gets 10M from counsel that appear before the court (hint-it's not-for any non-Supreme Court Justice.

As someone who practiced law his entire adult life, the brazen lack of ethics and the blatant hubris of several present members of this Court is disgusting.

Why would it be? Constitution only provides for the compensation of their services. Says nothing about anything else AFAIK. Which, since they're all cosplaying the part of strict originalists, should be entirely fine with them.

 

[Zorba]

Our corrupt political system is THE feature, not a bug or an accident. It has been bought and paid for, and the investments are just now starting to really pay off.

The Supreme Court doesn't give one fuck about it and thinking they are going to recuse themselves is delusional. They know who paid for their seats.

Y'all are trying to fight fascism's shadow. Those judges who y'all think care, don't care. It's all an act. While y'all are using words and logic and reasoning, they're planning on how they can award their benefactors more wealth while taking away more rights from everyone else.

I see a bunch of check-mate arguments being made, and the fascists ain't even playing chess.

No one in this thread thinks the judges give a shit. We think Congress should, though. Or maybe just send it to the FBI.

 

[Zorba]

Why would it be? Constitution only provides for the compensation of their services. Says nothing about anything else AFAIK. Which, since they're all cosplaying the part of strict originalists, should be entirely fine with them.

Or pay them what they got paid in 1792, since our gun laws have to match that time.

 

[Dave_5k]

Or pay them what they got paid in 1792, since our gun laws have to match that time.

While these "justices" randomly choose made-up facts with made up justification such as that 1792 reference, just a historical side note, that it was completely constitutional in 1792 - under anyone's interpretation - for states (or cities) to ban ownership of guns as they deemed fit. Only actual limit was that feds couldn't take guns away from the state militias.

This court had to merge those "1792" historical examples, with an entirely creative and unintended side effect of the (1868) 14th amendment, as only magically and newly discovered by a conservative court in 2010, to block state and city gun restrictions.

 

[woolfe9998]

Are you saying this with a knowledge of the industry or is this your opinion?

The linked article says it's at the high end, that she made the most commissions in her recruiting firm.

 

[woolfe9998]

Would it? What has been their stance of things that not EXPLICTLY enumerated? Where in the Constitution does it state "Thou shalt fund the Judicial Branch"? Did we not get that answer in the Dobbs case?

Senate can refuse to authorize their funding. It's not criminal so who's going to impeach the members of the Senate who refuse to fund them? If justices object then just sue. They will of course have to recuse themselves.

See where this leaves us?

This will all go away of those arrogant fucks just subject themselves to the SAME ethics rules and laws as lower level federal judges.

What's wrong with that??

It doesn't say we have to fund the executive or legislative branches either. But no branch of government can function without funding, and the Constitution says we must have these branches of government. Interpreting that as it is OK to just have a non-functioning branch is hyper-literal and I seriously doubt this or any other SCOTUS, regardless of ideological makeup, would find it Constitional to defund them.

 

[JTsyo]

Just my opinion ~ while a % of salary for recruiting/placing high-ranking executives (or in this case lawyers) is normal from what I understand, which can reach well into 6 figures per placement, I sincerely doubt she'd quickly capture that much of the high end placement market without the spouse connection...

When I first saw commissions, I thought it was art.

 

[Sunburn74]

Eliminating their budget would clearly be unconstitutional. If push came to shove however, how could the Court enforce such a ruling.

If this becomes a public outcry long enough and loud enough, then maybe the Court would "voluntarily" submit to a code of ethics. It should have some teeth and should be the same as every other federal judge has to comply with. Then we won't have these BS arguments as to whether a justice's wife gets 10M from counsel that appear before the court (hint-it's not-for any non-Supreme Court Justice.

As someone who practiced law his entire adult life, the brazen lack of ethics and the blatant hubris of several present members of this Court is disgusting.

How so? Congress controls the purse and the SCOTUS budget today is 300 million per year. It hasn't always been 300 million per year for this one court yet somehow it is today. The president cannot complain that budget cuts are unconstitutional, why can the SCOTUS? They can't. Technically speaking, congress is free to setup and manage the entire judicial system, SCOTUS as well. They pick the judges, created the various federal courts, pick their resources, and even to a degree determine their jurisdictions. I think the SCOTUS would be unhappy to face budget cuts but I don't think they can actually say it's unconstitutional particularly if Congress passes it in both houses and a president signs it.

Also for reference, yes the SCOTUS could probably pay for their own protection but they can't pay for their staff nor the resources to really research and prepare for every case. Furthermore even paying for your own private security 24-7 for yourself and all your family is quite a pretty penny that will probably get these guys in line lickety split. Budget cuts don't mean you cant function. It just means you have to function differently.

 

[HomerJS]

It doesn't say we have to fund the executive or legislative branches either. But no branch of government can function without funding, and the Constitution says we must have these branches of government. Interpreting that as it is OK to just have a non-functioning branch is hyper-literal and I seriously doubt this or any other SCOTUS, regardless of ideological makeup, would find it Constitional to defund them.

Isn't that hyper-literal stance how they managed to get rid of Roe?

The SCOTUS budget is part of the budget of the Judicial Branch. We just line item their budget out until they subject themselves to the same ethics rules/laws as other federal judges. This way the remaining Judicial Branch continues to operate. At a minimum like @Sunburn74 suggested cut the SCOTUS budget. We already know that is constitutional.

I would suggest ethics rules/law for all members of the Judicial Branch EXCEPT SCOTUS is extra-Democratic and in itself unconstitutional.