https://www.dailywire.com/news/liberal-scotus-justice-took-3m-from-book-publisher-didnt-recuse-from-its-casesSotomayor received $3.6 million from Random House for her books. When Greenspan v Random House reached the the supreme court, Breyer recused himself because he had similarly received money from Random House for his books, but Sotomayor did not recuse herself
This was the court case by the guy who accused the movie makers & author of The Social Network of plagiarizing him after rejecting his identical book about zuckerberg
of course, this is not a real issue to anyone who doesn't automatically assume malicious intent by every actor in the opposing camp. But as long as those are the rules we're playing by thanks to ProPublica, well this is a whole lot more direct than blathering about Harlan Crow & Clarence Thomas. She took money from Random House, then she voted in a case in which the supreme court refused the case against random house and gave them a win.
now technically one facet of the story conspicuously absent is
how sotomayor voted in that case, because scotus only shows whether the court as a whole denies cert, and whether justices recuse themselves, but not how each justice voted. But its a pretty safe bet she voted to dismiss, because that was just the logical outcome in a fair court case anyway and sotomayor isn't corrupt
I'm so confused about what your position is. Like dude, am I just high as a cucumber and off base, but like everything you're posting about Sotomayor (if I accept it on complete face value as true) is equally shitty and the fact that the Supreme Court doesn't have any ethical standards around this kind of stuff (but somehow lower federal courts do?) is a major problem all around, no????