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.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
Voting for candidate:
City:
@9GZDTYYIndependent2yrs2Y
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.
@9J75RW7Progressive1yr1Y
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?
@9CJ28DQIndependent2yrs2Y
@83BYVHGIndependent 7mos7MO
No, but they should be required to disclose all transactions, and recuse themselves from trials were they could be biased.
@9W6T4LVIndependent7mos7MO
No, but all actions should be fully public information and they should be expected to recuse themselves from any cases where their financial actions are impactful.
@JcawolfsonGreen 8mos8MO
Yes, judges have an obligation to be fair and impartial, and allowance of financial transactions with parties involved with/in a specific case would be detrimental to the right to a fair trial
@9KWBRNBIndependent1yr1Y
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.
@9KWBRNBIndependent1yr1Y
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.
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."
@9HLGDR4Independent 1yr1Y
Yes, and if it is discovered they have had financial transactions, they should immediately be suspended, and impeached.
@86ZDHQ7Independent 1yr1Y
Yes, and if their is a conflict of interest the Supreme Court justice should be forced to resign their position. They must be held to higher standard of behavior than others in the justice system because of how important their job is.
@6VKHGXVIndependent 2yrs2Y
Yes, but only for transactions over a certain amount.
@9D4WVKMIndependent2yrs2Y
ALL judges and politicians should be prohibited from making financial transactions like that. There is too much bribery going on in government on all levels.
@9XRCSZ5Independent7mos7MO
Yes and they should lose their position because there must be a consequence for them when they make the consequences for the rest of the country.
@9WCS9H4Independent7mos7MO
No, there should not be a categorical prohibition on financial transactions with people with interest in court outcomes. However, all financial transactions should be publically disclosed and there should be mechanisms to force recusal in a particular case of conflict or for impeachment and removal in severe cases.
@9SN4HCGIndependent9mos9MO
Yes, and immediately impeach, expel, and indict Supreme Court Justices who've taken any form of bribery or any transactions to influence court verdicts
@9S9HSM4Independent9mos9MO
No, but any transaction that can be conflicting transaction needs to be made public record and the judge cannot adjudicate.
@9ND8RVVIndependent12mos12MO
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.
@9M9DJ4BIndependent1yr1Y
Yes, it constitutes bribery and Justices who receives such transactions should be instantly impeached and removed from office
@9F8GVRDIndependent 2yrs2Y
No, you can't control what the justices do during their own time but have stricter ethics rules to rein in outsider bias from affecting court decisions
@9DH85KRIndependent2yrs2Y
No, I think it would be unconstitutional.
@9DYWDSDIndependent2yrs2Y
No, as long as it's public information
@9BRGM2BIndependent2yrs2Y
No, as long as they aren't doing anything illegal as a justice of the Supreme court.
@9BQ4W5YIndependent2yrs2Y
Yes, and they should be liable to impeachment if they make financial transactions with any interested party
@9CMXFL9Independent2yrs2Y
It shouldn't be allowed, because even if he or she made an impartial decision, they would be suspected of being bribed.
@9CGPZB3Independent2yrs2Y
Let them do so at the risk of being impeached.
@X83TF3Independent2yrs2Y
Unless they do it strictly as an incentive, I don't see a problem.
@9BPKD2WIndependent2yrs2Y
they shouldn't be barred from it, as long as its a real transaction.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
