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.
@ISIDEWITH12mos12MO
@ISIDEWITH12mos12MO
No
@9FM5QT47mos7MO
Supreme Court justices have the right to do whatever they want because the government should protect individual liberties.
Oh dammit..
NO..
If you can't see why this is inherently wrong, then me taking the time to try and convince you of that, well that's just stupid.
@9C69K6811mos11MO
Yes, and abolish the Supreme Court.
Deleted10mos10MO
Yes, and abolish the supreme court
@9DM5VBP8mos8MO
Abolish the supreme court
@9GZDTYYIndependent5mos5MO
No, it is the duty of the justices of the Supreme Court to be completely unbiased and fair in their decisions, which is encouraged by the fact that getting onto the Supreme Court is the last career move for a justice. The justices should not be prohibited from making transactions with people who have a vested interest in court outcomes because the justice shouldn't be influenced by such things anyway, and if they are then that means that Congress failed in their interview and the FBI failed in their investigation to prove the nature of the justice, or that the president made a politically motivated decision in their recess appointment of a justice. And of course, if a justice is truly not being unbiased and is accepting bribes from parties with vested interest(s) in the court ruling(s), judicial impeachment exists for that reason.
@9J75RW7Progressive3mos3MO
Are you familiar with the term "conflict of interest"? We don't expect the judges to be completely unbiased, we expect them to recognize their biases and act accordingly. Plus, are you familiar with the people who are now sitting on the Supreme Court?
@9CJ28DQIndependent10mos10MO
Yes, this is corruption.
@9B8BFNG12mos12MO
If the transaction can be found to be directly connected to the issue in bribery or the transaction constitutes a higher monetary value being transferred to the justice presiding over a case in question, then the justice should be investigated for accepting bribes.
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.
@9D3RPBQ9mos9MO
It should be strictly prohibited, and court justices should be heavily regulated
@9C5KXGM11mos11MO
Yes, but I would prefer to abolish the Supreme Court.
@9D54CRFLibertarian9mos9MO
No, but they should have to go through a third party for such transactions and the records of those transactions should be highly scrutinized.
@ExactingG3rrymander9mos9MO
That reminds me of the blind trust model often utilized by politicians to avoid conflicts of interest. Assets are managed by a third party, and the politician has no knowledge of how the assets are managed. This could potentially be adapted to the context of Supreme Court justices.
@9BNZ2RT12mos12MO
Yes, but only during the tenure of the court case.
@9LN7HFQ7 days7D
Depends on the nature of the transaction and whether the party has imminent business before the court
@9LLHW751wk1W
Yes, and any evidence that a current or former Supreme Court Justice colluded with a plaintiff should constitute a mistrial, lead to serious fines, sanctions, or expulsion from all government positions.
@Minarchist-08Libertarian 2wks2W
This wouldn’t matter if the Supreme Court was limited to its unimportant and minimal constitutional role. Clarence Thomas did not do anything wrong.
@9LJ3VDX2wks2W
supreme court makes their own decisions based on what is right and wrong. it depends on them if they are going to report or not.
@9LD56Y2Progressive3wks3W
Yes, The Conflict of interest clause should be enforced on all government employees. I situations before the court where justices hear a case where they have direct involvement they should only have 2 choices a) recusal or b) resignation and vote stricken from the record.
@9L88BQH4wks4W
No, but they should be required to recuse themselves from a case and impeached if they are in violation of such
@9L7N2XG4wks4W
Yes because the U.S. Constitution was founded to preserve the safety, protection, happiness, and prosperity of all American citizens and not the government.
@37XV947Libertarian 4wks4W
I see how this could be a conflict of interest but I don't think we should limit transactions between private parties.
@9L5JCR94wks4W
I don't think they should be prohibited from making financial transactions, but all should be publicly reported.
@9L4SDKK 1mo1MO
No, but increase regulation on Supreme Court officials and any possible tampering of judicial proceedings.
@9L3YXY61mo1MO
If the other party has an active case before the court, a justice doing business with them should recuse themselves. Otherwise, no.
@9L3WZG31mo1MO
I am unsure if we should ban it altogether but we should definitely put rules and regulations in place.
@9KWBRNBIndependent1mo1MO
Yes, I guess, at least if the transaction or gift is large enough (e.g. giving a >$100 gift to a friend/family member at birthday/Christmas); maybe they should report outside gifts/income.
@9KWBRNBIndependent1mo1MO
I guess, at least if the transaction or gift is large enough (e.g. giving a >$100 gift to a friend/family member at birthday/Christmas); maybe they should report outside gifts/income.
@9KMYVV82mos2MO
Yes, but only to the extent that the person's interest is a financial one and it is legally cognizable.
@9KLCVDR2mos2MO
Yes, anything that would be considered conflict of interest in a regular court should be prohibited in the Supreme Court
@9KHD9C82mos2MO
Yes, and so should anybody in public office, especially at the federal level where their decisions can have economic consequences.
@9KH7ZYH2mos2MO
It's important to prevent corruption within the supreme court and supreme Court judges should have strict rules of engagement with others including the inability to make transactions of money with someone who has a vested interest in court outcomes. It would be unethical if people can bribe a judge to make decisions.
@9KB3SRS 2mos2MO
No, but they should recuse themselves from the cases the people they have transactions with have a vested interest in, and if this results in an even number of justices hearings the case, and they cannot reach a majority decision, then the case should be either dismissed or retried at a later date, which is up to the justices’ discretion
@9K83B482mos2MO
I would say if there are any findings that a Judge is involved with a case before SCOTUS, they should recuse themselves from the case.
@mikejustkiddingIndependent 2mos2MO
No, but since they're going to do it anyway, there has to be some implemented system of oversight as the courts really have no check other than what equates to not much more than "the honor system."
@A_Star3 2mos2MO
I don't approve, but Justices should be allowed to follow through these transactions without legal complications, provided that they disclose these situations and deals beforehand. If found that they didn't openly state their "outside gifts and income", then legal matters can take place according to how severe the claims are.
@9K6PYMD2mos2MO
If they feel like it is honestly an issue within the justice system then make more rules to regulate and specify when and how certain gifts and incentives get exchanged through the court members
@9K3JZ762mos2MO
No, but judges should recuse themselves if they have directly profited in the past from a party to case being heard.
@StarSwordDemocrat 2mos2MO
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
@9JZRHX92mos2MO
No, they should be free to make their own financial decisions but they should be required to disclose economic activities that show relevant biases
@9JZQG8T2mos2MO
Yes. Appointed and elected government officials should be prohibited from trading on their positions of power and authority.
@9JYXZ2X2mos2MO
It depends on what the service the justice is purchasing. Ultimately, a justice is an individual who should be able to buy whatever they want based on there wants/needs. If private companies can enact "conflict of interest" policies, then the government should be under the same scrutiny to eliminate corruption.
@9JYKV3V2mos2MO
No but the justice should recuse him/herself if a case arises in which there a justice has made financial transactions with people vested or involved in that specific case.
@9J967Q2 3mos3MO
Yes, and making financial transactions with people who have a vested interest in court outcomes should be criminalized.
@9J75RW7Progressive3mos3MO
Did anyone else notice that there was actually a candidate that answered no? Why don't we just put a big "for sale or rent" sign on the Capital building?
@9J643BR3mos3MO
No, but they should be public record and Supreme Court Justices should be impeached if their decision is affected by it (and that is proven).
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
