86%
Yes
14%
No
86%
Yes
14%
No

Historical Results

See how support for each position on “Supreme Court Financial Transactions” has changed over time for 13.3k America voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

See how importance of “Supreme Court Financial Transactions” has changed over time for 13.3k America voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from America users whose views extended beyond the provided choices.

 @9GZDTYY from Maryland answered…5mos5MO

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.

 @9B8BFNG from Washington answered…11mos11MO

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.

Other Popular Questions

Explore other topics that are important to America voters.