In 2023 Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch were criticized after news articles revealed they had personal financial transactions with people who had interest in court decisions. Politico reported that Justice Gorsuch sold a vacation property to the CEO of a prominent law firm which often brings cases before the court. ProPublica that a Texas oil executive had purchased multiple properties from Justice Thomas which the justice did not disclose. The Supreme Court sets its own ethics rules and leaves justices to make their own decisions about when and how to report outside gifts and income.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
City:
@9X76J98Libertarian11mos11MO
Yes, with an exception for minor transactions (eg, a Judge can buy a Coca-Cola at the gas station even if Coca-Cola holds a vested interest in a suit)
@9VKH5L5Libertarian11mos11MO
to not allow a judge to conduct transactions would be too restrictive but, as part of being a justice, any such transactions should be investigated closely.
@9TVSQYTLibertarian12mos12MO
yes, but a strongly incentivized matching retirement plan should be created to replace their investments such as the TSP and should be mandatory for all people in politics to only invest in said fund until their civil service is done.
@9HLC85JLibertarian 2yrs2Y
Yes, the SCOTUS is based on a ruling of impartial, and unbiased conditions. Making financial transactions with those who many be affected by the ruling raises a lot of moral questions, most of which if have to be asked, probably answer the question within themselves.
@9DXJ6LCLibertarian2yrs2Y
Yes, or they may make these transactions but then must recuse themselves from the relevant cases.
@9STDYXFLibertarian1yr1Y
If they currently have a case before the court, yes. However, every US Citizen has a vested interest in most court outcomes at that level so unless you are prepared to hold all government officials to that standard and stop all donations to politics period then you cannot hold justices to a standard that you don't hold the other two branches to.
@9S7P3V4Libertarian1yr1Y
Obviously, as it's less likely they'd be unbiased in their work. Same goes for all positions within the judicial, government, and presidential branches.
@7YXQRQCLibertarian 1yr1Y
Yes, if a court ruling can benefit the justice at the expense of taxpayers or other ordinary citizens.
This wouldn’t matter if the Supreme Court was limited to its unimportant and minimal constitutional role. Clarence Thomas did not do anything wrong.
@37XV947Libertarian 1yr1Y
I see how this could be a conflict of interest but I don't think we should limit transactions between private parties.
@9DRPH44Libertarian2yrs2Y
A proper investigation should be held any time a transaction is done and if not disclosed should raise flags of possible corruption
@9DFRHQRLibertarian2yrs2Y
No, but should be required to report transactions to the public
@53PP5W5Libertarian2yrs2Y
This question is phrased in what may be the very stupidest, broadest way possible.
@9D54CRFLibertarian2yrs2Y
No, but they should have to go through a third party for such transactions and the records of those transactions should be highly scrutinized.
@ExactingG3rrymander2yrs2Y
That reminds me of the blind trust model often utilized by politicians to avoid conflicts of interest. Assets are managed by a third party, and the politician has no knowledge of how the assets are managed. This could potentially be adapted to the context of Supreme Court justices.
@84BVJVZLibertarian2yrs2Y
No, anyone could have a "vested interest" in a future court outcome as they will cover a wide variety of issues.
@9CRRXZ7Libertarian2yrs2Y
Yes, but to a reasonable level such that everyday transactions like purchasing groceries is not a prohibited transaction.
@83VCCTMLibertarian2yrs2Y
No, as long as they are not unlawful.
@9BQ56JYLibertarian2yrs2Y
only if there is a conflict of interest
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
