Try the political quiz

336 Replies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...1yr1Y


 @9FNCCZXDemocrat  from Texas disagreed…8mos8MO

Well, holy **** , the answer is in the question. Do we really have to type this out?
Yes, the obvious answer is yes.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...1yr1Y



Supreme Court justices have the right to do whatever they want because the government should protect individual liberties.

 @9FNCCZXDemocrat  from Texas agreed…8mos8MO

Oh dammit..
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.

 @9GZDTYYIndependent from Maryland answered…6mos6MO

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.

 @9J75RW7Progressive from Texas commented…4mos4MO

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?

 @ScoopesoDemocrat  from Florida answered…9mos9MO

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.

 @9D3RPBQfrom Guam answered…10mos10MO

It should be strictly prohibited, and court justices should be heavily regulated

 @9C5KXGM from Georgia answered…12mos12MO

 @9B8BFNG from Washington answered…1yr1Y

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.

 @9D54CRFLibertarian from Washington commented…10mos10MO

No, but they should have to go through a third party for such transactions and the records of those transactions should be highly scrutinized.

 @ExactingG3rrymanderfrom Oregon agreed…10mos10MO

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.

 @9BNZ2RT from Missouri answered…1yr1Y

 @9MFX8R7 from Missouri answered…5 days5D

Judges should serve voluntarily and for no payment. Making money off of crime should be punished as though you committed the crime yourself.

 @9MDZSRC from Tennessee answered…6 days6D

Short answer no.Long answer in an unhampered market economy any adjudicator being perceived as corrupt will quickly loose most of his clients.The free market will quickly sort this issue out on its own.

 @9M9DJ4BIndependentfrom Guam answered…2wks2W

Yes, it constitutes bribery and Justices who receives such transactions should be instantly impeached and removed from office


Depends on the situation. Others should overview interactions to make sure no bribery or anything is involved.

 @Freedom76  from South Carolina answered…2wks2W

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  from North Carolina answered…3wks3W

Yes, and the same goes for other branches/organizations in our government. Should be treated like insider trading.

 @9LYDXC8  from Utah answered…3wks3W

No, but all such transactions (including past and future) should be clearly notified to the public and available to be accessed by the public.

 @9LTX62R from Texas answered…3wks3W

As long as it's not through acts of bribing and altering court cases then there should be no problem.

 @9LLHW75 from Louisiana answered…1mo1MO

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  from Washington answered…1mo1MO

This wouldn’t matter if the Supreme Court was limited to its unimportant and minimal constitutional role. Clarence Thomas did not do anything wrong.

 @9LJ3VDX from Florida answered…1mo1MO

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.

 @9LD56Y2Progressive from Nevada answered…1mo1MO

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.

 @9L88BQH from Oklahoma answered…2mos2MO

No, but they should be required to recuse themselves from a case and impeached if they are in violation of such

 @9L7N2XG from New York answered…2mos2MO

Yes because the U.S. Constitution was founded to preserve the safety, protection, happiness, and prosperity of all American citizens and not the government.

 @9L5JCR9 from Tennessee answered…2mos2MO

I don't think they should be prohibited from making financial transactions, but all should be publicly reported.

 @9L4SDKK  from Nevada answered…2mos2MO

No, but increase regulation on Supreme Court officials and any possible tampering of judicial proceedings.

 @9L3YXY6 from Utah answered…2mos2MO

If the other party has an active case before the court, a justice doing business with them should recuse themselves. Otherwise, no.

 @9L3WZG3 from Texas answered…2mos2MO

I am unsure if we should ban it altogether but we should definitely put rules and regulations in place.

 @9KWBRNBIndependent from New York answered…2mos2MO

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.

 @9KWBRNBIndependent from New York answered…2mos2MO

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.

 @9KMYVV8 from Kansas answered…2mos2MO

Yes, but only to the extent that the person's interest is a financial one and it is legally cognizable.

 @9KLCVDR from Missouri answered…2mos2MO

Yes, anything that would be considered conflict of interest in a regular court should be prohibited in the Supreme Court

 @9KHD9C8 from Idaho answered…3mos3MO

Yes, and so should anybody in public office, especially at the federal level where their decisions can have economic consequences.

 @9KH7ZYHfrom Montana answered…3mos3MO

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 from Guam answered…3mos3MO

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

 @9K83B48 from Mississippi answered…3mos3MO

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  from New York answered…3mos3MO

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  from Ohio answered…3mos3MO

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.

 @9K6PYMD from Virginia answered…3mos3MO

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

 @9K3JZ76 from Texas answered…3mos3MO

No, but judges should recuse themselves if they have directly profited in the past from a party to case being heard.

 @StarSwordDemocrat  from North Carolina answered…3mos3MO

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

 @9JZRHX9 from Minnesota answered…3mos3MO

No, they should be free to make their own financial decisions but they should be required to disclose economic activities that show relevant biases


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...