Judges are not in any other case hand to criminal standards. Every other judge is held to the standard that if there's even the appearance of corruption they can be reprimanded.

gifts are required to be disclosed, and these werent. this is made worse by the fact that the same billionaire responsible for the gifts had cases ruled on by the Supreme Court. if you need me to spell out for you how that is a direct conflict of interest (aside from issue of failuring to disclose), I guess this is where the conversation ends

And a Justice is required to recuse his/herself if a conflict of interest prevents them from judging the issue impartially. Justice Sotomayor did not.

Your argument is that Justice Sotomayor's issue did not pose a conflict of interest, and Justice Alito's did. Both were required to recuse themselves if it prevented them from doing their job impartially, but Alito's incident amounted to a few thousand dollars, and Sotomayor's involved millions of dollars. I am telling you that you're not making any sense.

This post was edited by bogie160 on Jun 21 2023 07:37pm

Im not defending her decision not to recuse herself; she should have recused herself. ALL justices should recuse themselves accordingly... but, unfortunately, they arent required to and that decision cannot be appealed. its a fucked system thus the need for a formal code of ethics.

Im arguing that gifts AND ruling on a case where the gifter is involved is ENTIRELY different from not recusing/not ruling on a case where royalties are involved.
Alito received gifts and ruled directly, Sotomayor didnt even rule on the case and the money received was part of a business deal. two different worlds we are talking about
Sotomayor also disclosed her earnings whereas Alito not only failed to disclose the trips but now he's getting huffy and puffy for people asking questions. its fucking insane

if we cant trust Alito's judgement on whether to disclose things he's legally required to, how can we trust he isnt compromised? Im not saying he is but it really makes you wonder

This post was edited by gnarjay on Jun 21 2023 07:48pm

Bold - Whether or not you decide not to hear a case or whether you rule on a case is irrelevant, you're making a life-changing legal decision. Whether or not it was a gift, a business deal, or an outright bribe is irrelevant, you're receiving cash compensation to influence said life-changing legal decision.

Underlined - Is Alito being investigated for breaking the law?



Supreme Court Justices are not. They are their own branch of government, and have, historically at least, been given the respect and discretion that it is their due. I think it's fine to disagree with that, but you might as well not have an independent judiciary at that point.

This post was edited by bogie160 on Jun 21 2023 08:16pm

thats like saying the distinction between thinking about drunk driving vs actually driving drunk is irrelevant.... its not irrelevant, lmfao, the decision is the difference. Alito ruled on cases involving Singer's hedgefund TEN TIMES ! TEN! Sotomayor ruled on ZERO cases involving Random House.

if Alito and Singer were good friends, what was Alito doing ruling on his cases?
if they werent good friends, why was he accepting a luxury fishing trip and a private jet ride for free? and then NOT disclosing it??

this isnt an us vs them , right vs left issue; ALL justices should be as transparent as possible and if they refuse it then they shouldnt be in office period. you dont think life-time justices of the highest court in this country should be held to the highest ethical standards? am I taking fucking crazy pills??

also, yes, looks like some shit is going down with Alito/SC once Congress comes back from break next month

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/samuel-alito-propublica-supreme-court-ethics-paul-singer/

https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/following-propublica-report-regarding-justice-alito-durbin-and-whitehouse-announce-markup-in-senate-judiciary-committee-on-supreme-court-ethics-reform-legislation-during-next-work-period

I know they aren't, that's the problem.

Branches of government are absolutely not intended to he independent. That's literally the fundamental idea of how our governance is set up. The court has had to be reigned in before and they are overdue for another lesson.

quid pro quo is necessary to make it a crime, i dont think anyone is suggesting Alito be charged, could be wrong. We're in a hot era of increased scrutiny of SCOTUS behavior to set precedents for bad behavior. thus is the reality of an imbalanced court. if it were a strong liberal majority you'd see the GOP digging into this stuff too. when they cant win a vote they try to dig up recusals or at least sling dirt at decisions.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jun 22 2023 06:28am

Did he rule in their favour all ten times?