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

[VRAMdemon]

All 9 Supreme Court justices push back on oversight: 'Raises more questions,' Senate chair says

All nine Supreme Court justices, in a rare move, signed a joint statement rebutting proposals for independent ethics oversight, mandatory rules and greater transparency

abcnews.go.com

In reality they are just lawyers and most (all?) are not noted for their jurisprudence. They were all put there to be a reliable rubber stamp.

“Supreme Court Upholds Corruption 9-0”

 

[NTMBK]

All of that said, get rid of lifetime appointments of the Supreme Court. Starting today.

The Supreme Court TERM Act could make the Supreme Court relatively less terrible than it is today. Each Justice can serve 18 years, then go do something else with your life you're fucking old and it's almost guaranteed your "interpretation" of the law is less valid than it was 20 years prior.

That's just going to make corruption easier! Do your 18 years, "retire", then go reap "consulting fees" from the organisations you treated favourably.

 

[Thump553]

All 9 Supreme Court justices push back on oversight: 'Raises more questions,' Senate chair says

All nine Supreme Court justices, in a rare move, signed a joint statement rebutting proposals for independent ethics oversight, mandatory rules and greater transparency

abcnews.go.com

In reality they are just lawyers and most (all?) are not noted for their jurisprudence. They were all put there to be a reliable rubber stamp.

“Supreme Court Upholds Corruption 9-0”

I view this letter, and the fact that all nine Justices signed it, an unfortunate display of institutional blindness by all these individuals. They, individually and collectively have to idea how much their arrogance and corruption (Thomas is the clearest example) and/or undeniable clear appearance of corruption (the chief Justice's wife making millions off placement of attorneys who will appear before the Court).

They apparently have no idea how much their behavior has damaged the Court. IMO the American legal system has be a major factor in the rise of USA as an unprecedented superpower. Much of the Court's power rests upon their public support. The Constitution does not grant the Court any enforcement power at all. By appointment of Justices who issue decisions based upon partisan "values" rather than real, impartial jurisprudence they are a major driver in the collapse of a core US institution.

 

[Jaskalas]

To the topic at hand, I would say anyone in a position of power receiving unusual amounts of cash to be an alarming bit of corruption. By person, I am including their family. Because they are still benefiting even if it isn't in their exact bank account. Presidents and SCOTUS should not be bribed, yet here we are where many people are completely justifying it for their own party. Given that, is there any doubt that America is a nation of corruption?

 

[pmv]

All 9 Supreme Court justices push back on oversight: 'Raises more questions,' Senate chair says

All nine Supreme Court justices, in a rare move, signed a joint statement rebutting proposals for independent ethics oversight, mandatory rules and greater transparency

abcnews.go.com

In reality they are just lawyers and most (all?) are not noted for their jurisprudence. They were all put there to be a reliable rubber stamp.

“Supreme Court Upholds Corruption 9-0”

Interesting that they are united on this. Even the Democrat-appointed ones. It seems that there's an inherent degree of corruption involved in just feeling oneself part of the club, one of the elite. People come to enjoy exercising power, and identify more with their fellow powerful than with anything larger.

That's presumably what happened to RBG - she became too enamored with being part of that elite gang, and forgot why she was supposed to be there, which led to her failure to quit before it was too late. It's just a bad system all round.

 

[Dave_5k]

Interesting that they are united on this. Even the Democrat-appointed ones. It seems that there's an inherent degree of corruption involved in just feeling oneself part of the club, one of the elite. People come to enjoy exercising power, and identify more with their fellow powerful than with anything larger.

That's presumably what happened to RBG - she became too enamored with being part of that elite gang, and forgot why she was supposed to be there, which led to her failure to quit before it was too late. It's just a bad system all round.

From what I gather, all of the supreme "justices" have been taking advantage of free fully paid vacations - including multi-week international ones - for years now.

These trips are almost always paid for, oddly enough, by people with specific interests in how the court rules... none of which the recent Supreme Court justices have ever deemed to be a conflict of interest.

Basically getting paid by special interests to go on trips with those same special interests and listen exclusively to those rich special interests, does not construe any conflict of interest when ruling on cases either brought or supported strongly by those same special interests - in the fully-bought and paid for minds of the current supreme court.

 

[outriding]

I have skimmed the thread and I did not see this come up. ….

It seems to me she is noting more than a lobbyist. And if she registered as a lobbyist?

If she did not shouldn’t there be a financial penalty or loose all of her commission. I would prefer for her to loose her whole commission

 

[Meghan54]

I have skimmed the thread and I did not see this come up. ….

It seems to me she is noting more than a lobbyist. And if she registered as a lobbyist?

If she did not shouldn’t there be a financial penalty or loose all of her commission. I would prefer for her to loose her whole commission

She’s an executive headhunter focused on attorneys. They exist and it’s a real job.

She started it just after hubby became SC member. Odd, that timing.

 

[Jaskalas]

Should Presidents, Congress, and or Judges have direct ties and benefits to corporate interests, and or foreign governments?
Are such ties automatically corruption? And if not, should they be?

 

[nickqt]

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

Yes, exactly. You think Congress isn't as corrupt as the Supreme Court. Or the FBI.

Hold your breath and see how soon Congress and the FBI right the obvious wrongs anyone can see with the Supreme Court.

Have a nice nap. The Supreme Court will still be chugging along doing its thing when you wake up.

 

[IronWing]

Should Presidents, Congress, and or Judges have direct ties and benefits to corporate interests, and or foreign governments?
Are such ties automatically corruption? And if not, should they be?

Now we see why the courts gutted the Emoluments Clause.

 

[fskimospy]

Should Presidents, Congress, and or Judges have direct ties and benefits to corporate interests, and or foreign governments?
Are such ties automatically corruption? And if not, should they be?

I think asking that our politicians have no ties to business is probably not feasible. I don’t think they are automatically corruption but they should all be very, very public knowledge. Doubly so for judges who are appointed for life. (Also maybe reconsider that)

 

[nickqt]

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

I didn't ask, I supposed. Roberts' wife is an attorney. She got paid by a law firm.

If you think that you're going to get Roberts impeached for that, it's laughably delusional.

Unless you dig up a signed and notarized PDF where Roberts promises to do whatever his wife tells him to do because of a quid pro quo, you're pissing in the wind.

Have you seen the shit powerful people have gotten away with for, say, the entire human historical record?

An attorney getting paid by a law firm is what you think is going to inspire a popular revolt or something?

Come on, man.

You're mistaking me describing objective observable reality with I guess a fascist making up excuses for why something not only isn't corrupt but is good.

I've moved past the argument you and others are making a few decades ago.

 

[Sunburn74]

Should Presidents, Congress, and or Judges have direct ties and benefits to corporate interests, and or foreign governments?
Are such ties automatically corruption? And if not, should they be?

I wouldn't lump all of these people together. Its a matter of power and influence and how easy it is to divest from said interests. If you're a divorce court judge, no one cares if you own stock in boeing. If you're on the SCOTUS or the president of the USA and you're making decisions that directly affect boeing, it matters.

I would say in general I think do think all presidents, congressmen, and federal appeals and scotus judges should have to divest everything into blind trusts for as long as they stay in those roles. It's just too hard to disentangle their actions from their conflicts of interests because their actions are so broad in scope and nature that its impossible to avoid conflicts.

 

[fskimospy]

I didn't ask, I supposed. Roberts' wife is an attorney. She got paid by a law firm.

If you think that you're going to get Roberts impeached for that, it's laughably delusional.

Unless you dig up a signed and notarized PDF where Roberts promises to do whatever his wife tells him to do because of a quid pro quo, you're pissing in the wind.

Have you seen the shit powerful people have gotten away with for, say, the entire human historical record?

An attorney getting paid by a law firm is what you think is going to inspire a popular revolt or something?

Come on, man.

You're mistaking me describing objective observable reality with I guess a fascist making up excuses for why something not only isn't corrupt but is good.

I've moved past the argument you and others are making a few decades ago.

Even if you had Thomas on video picking up a bag with a cartoon dollar sign on it with a note that said ‘bribe’ I’m not at all sure he would be removed.

The process we used for appointing SCOTUS justices no longer works because their own party will never remove them no matter how serious the misconduct.

 

[alien42]

From what I gather, all of the supreme "justices" have been taking advantage of free fully paid vacations - including multi-week international ones - for years now.

These trips are almost always paid for, oddly enough, by people with specific interests in how the court rules... none of which the recent Supreme Court justices have ever deemed to be a conflict of interest.

Basically getting paid by special interests to go on trips with those same special interests and listen exclusively to those rich special interests, does not construe any conflict of interest when ruling on cases either brought or supported strongly by those same special interests - in the fully-bought and paid for minds of the current supreme court.

what exactly does "from what i gather" mean? (that sounds just like Trump). while i wouldn't be surprised by corruption of any SC justice, i haven't seen any reporting on the 3 Democrat appointed justices that matches your accusations.

 

[Dave_5k]

what exactly does "from what i gather" mean? (that sounds just like Trump). while i wouldn't be surprised by corruption of any SC justice, i haven't seen any reporting on the 3 Democrat appointed justices that matches your accusations.

Should have included some references, here's example from older source:

Supreme Court Justices Earn Free Trips and More on the Side

Six of the court’s nine members received paid trips to Europe in 2014

time.com

"Six of the court’s nine members received paid trips to Europe in 2014, including to Berlin, London and Zurich," On the less nefarious side, much of the fully-paid for travel is actually education related / speeches at law schools, but many of the european trips go rather far beyond that with multi-week stays...

More recent 2018 overview and links to disclosures:

Justices release financial disclosures - SCOTUSblog

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts released the justices’ annual financial disclosures for 2018 today. The forms do not provide a complete picture of the justices’ finances: They do not, for example, include the value of the justices’ homes, and the values of their stocks, investments and

www.scotusblog.com

"The justices racked up the frequent-flyer miles again in 2018. Octogenarian Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg went everywhere from Park City, Utah, to Rome, Israel and Jordan, while Breyer hit (among others) Ireland, Spain, Paris, Aspen, Nevis and Sun Valley. Chief Justice John Roberts flew domestic, traveling to speak at law schools in St. Louis and Minnesota."

Paid for trips did curtail drastically during the pandemic, so more recent years are less revealing (plus this is only showing the paid trips the justices bother to disclose - see Thomas, Clarence with "none...none...none").

 

[emperus]

I view this letter, and the fact that all nine Justices signed it, an unfortunate display of institutional blindness by all these individuals. They, individually and collectively have to idea how much their arrogance and corruption (Thomas is the clearest example) and/or undeniable clear appearance of corruption (the chief Justice's wife making millions off placement of attorneys who will appear before the Court).

They apparently have no idea how much their behavior has damaged the Court. IMO the American legal system has be a major factor in the rise of USA as an unprecedented superpower. Much of the Court's power rests upon their public support. The Constitution does not grant the Court any enforcement power at all. By appointment of Justices who issue decisions based upon partisan "values" rather than real, impartial jurisprudence they are a major driver in the collapse of a core US institution.

I don't believe all 9 justices signed Robert's letter. I believe they signed the an attached statement of ethics.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The process we used for appointing SCOTUS justices no longer works because their own party will never remove them no matter how serious the misconduct.

The real solution is to get rid of the party that doesn't care that the people they elect is corrupt. I think we are slowly seeing a movement in that direction, it is just going to take decades. Until then we are probably not going to see any reform.

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

I think you are right, eliminating their budget would be unconstitutional, but auditing it and making them justify every single dime they spend then lowering it to bare minimum that they could possible need to get the job done would clearly be constitutional. Nickle and dime them to death. Make the justices themselves constantly justify every expenditure. Bureaucrat their asses until they are miserable.

 

[fskimospy]

The real solution is to get rid of the party that doesn't care that the people they elect is corrupt. I think we are slowly seeing a movement in that direction, it is just going to take decades. Until then we are probably not going to see any reform.


I think you are right, eliminating their budget would be unconstitutional, but auditing it and making them justify every single dime they spend then lowering it to bare minimum that they could possible need to get the job done would clearly be constitutional. Nickle and dime them to death. Make the justices themselves constantly justify every expenditure. Bureaucrat their asses until they are miserable.

The main issue is that SCOTUS will just declare all attempts to rein them in unconstitutional, including funding cuts.

I think expanding the court is the only solution. Expand it now to dilute the power of the corrupt justices and then also issue a warning that if they don’t start behaving themselves more expansions will come.

 

[HomerJS]

The main issue is that SCOTUS will just declare all attempts to rein them in unconstitutional, including funding cuts.

I think expanding the court is the only solution. Expand it now to dilute the power of the corrupt justices and then also issue a warning that if they don’t start behaving themselves more expansions will come.

So what, let them. Who's going to enforce that ruling? Are they saying that based on some unenumerated right?

Where have we heard that before?

 

[fskimospy]

So what, let them. Who's going to enforce that ruling? Are they saying that based on some unenumerated right?

Where have we heard that before?

Sure, but if we're ignoring SCOTUS rulings then why not just do that now and skip the middle man?

 

[HomerJS]

Sure, but if we're ignoring SCOTUS rulings then why not just do that now and skip the middle man?

Until SCOTUS subjects themselves to the same ethics laws/rules as lower court judges, I'm in.

It was NEVER more obvious then that so called investigation into the Dobbs leak. People were questioned under oath except.....

you guessed it, the justices themselves. They are not gods sitting on top of Mount Olympus. They fancy themselves accountable to no one.

 

[Pens1566]

Sure, but if we're ignoring SCOTUS rulings then why not just do that now and skip the middle man?

I'm fine with this in the short term. And it wouldn't be the first time it's happened either. Call it a check and balance.

 

[fskimospy]

Until SCOTUS subjects themselves to the same ethics laws/rules as lower court judges, I'm in.

It was NEVER more obvious then that so called investigation into the Dobbs leak. People were questioned under oath except.....

you guessed it, the justices themselves. They are not gods sitting on top of Mount Olympus. They fancy themselves unaccountable to no one.

I hear you but think expanding the court is a better option. We agree that the court now is out of control and totally unaccountable to anyone and that's terrible. Having a situation where the executive no longer obeys court rulings isn't great either though - I think expansion both neuters the power of the court and keeps a situation where we have a rule of law.