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:
Yes. I'm okay with court having their own ethics rule and would like to keep other branches of the government out of it in order to maintain the balance of power. So yes, the issue should be handled internally while keeping other branches and DOJ out of it while also making the other justices aware providing them the ability to vote on the matter. But yes I agree it should be prohibited or disincentivized.
Yes, but it depends on the stance of if personal gain affects not just the person, but the wide consensus of America.
Yes, we need bipartisan laws to affirm the ethical standards of the bench and American people should have more voting rights in the prosecution and termination of ethics violaters.
@StarSwordDemocrat 2yrs2Y
Yes, and require Supreme Court justices to place all their own financial assets in a blind trust for the duration of their term on the court
No, as long as it is not swagging their opinion
Absolutely. In fact, such ground should be immediate grounds for impeachment and removal. A comprehensive ethics code for the Supreme Court should be instituted as well.
Yes, but only if it can be proven that the financial transactions would be from those with vested interest.
Yes, and abolish the Supreme Court.
Yes, and they should face impeachment and removal from the bench if investigators discover that they have accepted unlawful gifts.
No, but an indepentent party should be brought in to review decisions where a conflict of interest may exist and present a recommendation on whether that judge should be recused. The other judges should make the decision based on that information.
No, as long as those transactions have a justified explanation and are used for something important.
No, but they should be required to report it as a conflict of interest and recuse them from relevant cases
No, but should recuse themselves if the amounts received are material/significant.
Yes, but only if the transaction is vital to that justice's health and livelihood.
Yes, we cannot afford to have conflicts of interest in the highest court in the land
Yes, and Congress should pass a stronger ethics code for the Supreme Court
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
