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:
@B2K4ZKL8mos8MO
I wanted to say yes because internal corruption is a driving point for me, and I want to look at the libertarian party rather than the current dominating parties. However, I also want to say no because I believe letting people do what they would naturally do can lead to better evidence of whether or not someone is truly being bribed in a high position of power like that. I want transparency for positions that have such power to alter another person's life.
@9ZDHGHP10mos10MO
Case-by-case basis, but investigations should be undergone, with corresponding punishment if guilty, if there is an egregious case
@9TBM7NH1yr1Y
Depends upon the circumstances. If direct bribery can be proven then yes. If it’s a friend buying a nice trip or dinner after a case has been decided, no.
@9D5G7XG2yrs2Y
I say that financial transactions should be put on hold until the court cases are settled.
@9D562X52yrs2Y
The justices should not be able to profit financially from any of their decisions, but they should still have their freedom to purchase from organizations that may profit off of their decisions.
@B6G4N7X1mo1MO
yes . they should not be taking money or bribes that ensure that they sway their decisions on anything that can severely affect the american people.
@9RZ4FZ41yr1Y
I think if it has to do with a decision in the court they shouldn't be aloud to but if it is something that has nothing to do with the court it could be aloud.
@9P82WP21yr1Y
The Supreme Court should be abolished through a constitutional convention and another method of selecting judges to be empowered with prerogatives of judicial review of legislation besides presidential appointment should be devised.
@9MDZSRC1yr1Y
Short answer no.Long answer in an unhampered market economy any adjudicator being perceived as corrupt will quickly loose most of his clients.The free market will quickly sort this issue out on its own.
@9L5JCR91yr1Y
I don't think they should be prohibited from making financial transactions, but all should be publicly reported.
@9JCHQQ32yrs2Y
Yes, The Supreme Court justices should be held to a higher standard and be criminally liable for using their position for personal outcome/gain
No, but they should be required to report it as a conflict of interest and recuse them from relevant cases
@9HYB43NRepublican 2yrs2Y
Supreme Court justices should be held to the same standard as other professions when it comes to conflicts of interest.
@9GK4X2Y2yrs2Y
Everyone has a vested interest in Supreme Court case outcomes. This question needs to drill down deeper. What are you really asking? As currently stated, a "Yes" would prohibit all financial transactions from justices.
@9BYYBPP2yrs2Y
Yes, and just like politicians, Supreme Court Justices should have their financial records audited each year to make sure they are not receiving donations that may sway their political rulings. They are public servants that have the ability to affect the lives of millions of Americans. They should not be bought.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
