Sotomayor did NOT rule on that case...the case that youre referring to wasnt even brought before the SC, it was kicked back down to the district court which is exactly what should have happened. had Sotomayor recused herself, the result would have been exactly the same as 4 justices are needed to hear the case and there werent enough cert votes for the case to be heard.

so the Supreme Court is exempt from ethical standards because Congress people trade stocks ? desperate whataboutism here duder

And the case ProPublica alleges bias on the part of Alito was a 7-1 decision where whether or not Alito recused meant absolutely nothing. As you appear to side with ProPublica on this, walk me through their thought process and apply it to the Sotomayor case.



Try reading again. The idea that you can buy Supreme Court decisions for the cost of a plane flight is ridiculous and not newsworthy. We have limited attention spans, whether or not there should be more stringent financial reporting for Supreme Court justices for fraud that has not taken place is very low on the totem poll when we have fraud that is clearly taking place at a thousand times the scale.

"we won by 12 runs, who care's if the first basemen was juiced out of his mind and he only got a solo home run?"

if you're biased recuse yourself, not because it may affect the decision, because you're biased.

Sotomayor should have recused.

There, you got your 1. Now talk about the 499 from Thomas.

Sotomayor wasnt accepting gifts, that's the entire difference. she was being paid royalties for a book deal with Random House, not accepting random trips and gifts from billionaires like Alito and Uncle Clarence Thomas

They know it's not the same, they just don't care about ethics if it serves their cause.

Same reason they did a 5 year investigation into Bidens son and only came up with crimes that nobody would have been charged with under normal circumstances and then compare it to Trump or Kushner getting 2 billion from the Saudis.

What difference does that make at all? If a company is paying me millions to represent them, am I less partial to them than if they gave me a $1000 gift? The (ethical) crime is not the gift, it's the appearance of impropriety.

Alito says he deals with thousands of cases and had no idea the guy was involved. Sounds reasonable enough to me, it was a meaningless vote.

I don't agree with the analogy, quid pro quo is a necessary component to make it a crime, legal or otherwise. There is clearly nothing of value being exchanged.