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.
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
No
@9FM5QT410mos10MO
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.
@9DM5VBP11mos11MO
Abolish the supreme court
@9C69K681yr1Y
Yes, and abolish the Supreme Court.
Deleted1yr1Y
Yes, and abolish the supreme court
@9GZDTYYIndependent8mos8MO
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.
@9J75RW7Progressive6mos6MO
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?
@9CM7CFH1yr1Y
The Supreme Court should be abolished.
@9CJ28DQIndependent1yr1Y
Yes, this is corruption.
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.
@9D3RPBQ12mos12MO
It should be strictly prohibited, and court justices should be heavily regulated
@9C5KXGM1yr1Y
Yes, but I would prefer to abolish the Supreme Court.
@9B8BFNG1yr1Y
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.
@9D54CRFLibertarian12mos12MO
No, but they should have to go through a third party for such transactions and the records of those transactions should be highly scrutinized.
@ExactingG3rrymander12mos12MO
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.
@9BNZ2RT1yr1Y
Yes, but only during the tenure of the court case.
Yes, and they should face impeachment and removal from the bench if investigators discover that they have accepted unlawful gifts.
@9R86Z9Z5 days5D
No, but they should recuse themselves if they have a financial relationship with someone before them.
@9R7S7KQ5 days5D
Yes, but only for transactions with people directly involved in supreme court cases that are in progress.
@9R348MG1wk1W
No. Instead, an amendment should be implemented which requires Supreme Court Justices to recuse themselves if they are presiding over a case wherein there is a conflict of interest.
@9QZ9W6J2wks2W
Not prohibited, but they should be required to recuse themselves when those individuals have cases before the court.
@9QYVNT72wks2W
I believe any financial transaction should be submitted ahead of time and recorded appropriately. Some sort of system in place.
@9QY6FMQ2wks2W
No, but justices should have their money (investments) managed by a blind trust, actually all executive and legislative members should have to do this.
@9QT4T3Z2wks2W
Yes, but vested interest should be defined strictly to mean people with actual business before the court
@9QQWNWMRepublican3wks3W
All people (and their family) who are in a government job (Congress, Executive Branch and Judicial Branch) that make decisions/voting that impact the outcome of businesses or markets should not be allowed to gain financially. Regular auditing of these government employees and their families should be audited semi-annually to ensure they are not "insider trading".
@9PVQN5T4wks4W
"People who have a vested interest in court outcomes" is FAR too wide a group to prohibit someone from dealing with as soon as they sit on the Supreme Court, and for the rest of their lives.
If the question were, "Should Supreme Court justices be barred from judging cases that involve individuals or corporations with which they have financial or personal relationships," I would have answered 'yes.'
@9PTZCQ34wks4W
No, but transactions are subject to scrutiny and legal action if brought by any individual or class-action suit
@9PKRLL21mo1MO
No however they justices should remove themselves from cases regarding those individuals with vested interest
@9PBDYVJ1mo1MO
No the Congress is co-equal and lacks the authority to prohibit anything about SCOTUS beyond adjusting the size of the court in order to allow the court to adequately serve the people
@9P82WP21mo1MO
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.
@9NZKYWM1mo1MO
To protect the separation of powers, Congress should not regulate the Courts expect through Constitutionally proscribed methods.
@9NYT4H52mos2MO
Yes, and require the immediate recusal of that Justice from said case as well as a full investigation into their finances from the moment they were sworn in.
@9NMGH7C 2mos2MO
Yes, limit the amount of money, gifts, trips etc. a justice can receive since they amount to bribery
@9ND8RVVIndependent2mos2MO
I think this is already the case. If we're referencing Clarence Thomas, his association with a wealthy friend went back years and there was no specific ties between case outcomes and his friend. Furthermore, Thomas has recused himself on a case involving a school he ties to. This is a non-issue and an example of the political left attacking the legitimacy of a court that has moved away from being their weapon against Constitutional barriers to their judicial activism.
@9MW7PSW2mos2MO
No, but the Supreme Court's conduct rules should be codified and should not be solely self-regulated. The justice should have to recuse themselves.
@9MTZNC42mos2MO
Absolutely, and there should be a strict ethics code put in place to tightly regulate the Court’s conduct
@9MJGCR82mos2MO
No, but if a financial transaction is performed, it should be reported if the transaction is between a Supreme Court justice and an individual who has a vested interest in court outcomes.
@7YXQRQCLibertarian 2mos2MO
Yes, if a court ruling can benefit the justice at the expense of taxpayers or other ordinary citizens.
@9MHLHYR2mos2MO
There should be a bipartisan ethics code that instructs, investigates, and rules on ethics by Supreme Court justices. Separation of powers.
@9M8BDJZ3mos3MO
Depends on the situation. Others should overview interactions to make sure no bribery or anything is involved.
@Freedom76 3mos3MO
The only reason this is an issue is because the Supreme Court has expanded drastically from its severely limited constitutional role to a ring of unelected puppeteers who trample on State sovereignty and the rights of Americans. Scale it back down and the problem will disappear.
@9LYHGPW 3mos3MO
Yes, and the same goes for other branches/organizations in our government. Should be treated like insider trading.
@9LYDXC8 3mos3MO
No, but all such transactions (including past and future) should be clearly notified to the public and available to be accessed by the public.
@9LTX62R3mos3MO
As long as it's not through acts of bribing and altering court cases then there should be no problem.
@9LLHW753mos3MO
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 3mos3MO
This wouldn’t matter if the Supreme Court was limited to its unimportant and minimal constitutional role. Clarence Thomas did not do anything wrong.
@9LJ3VDX4mos4MO
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.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
