Compared to what? I think she has pulled in 400K from her books. I find that to be a lot of money. Maybe you don’t. 
No idea. Was that mentioned in this article? 
1 - Yes, I think it’s real money
2 - The article says she’s not pulling in additional money from those book sales
3 - Compared to things like private jets and luxury yachts; that sounds like about 1 billionaire funded scotus vacation
Yes. Feels like the lede was buried a bit there.
Rides on plane or a boat is not the same as cold hard cashola.
My bad. It was
Sotomayor’s staff has often prodded public institutions that have hosted the justice to buy her memoir or children’s books, works that have earned her at least $3.7 million since she joined the court in 2009.
Noice.
none of the justices has as forcefully leveraged publicly sponsored travel to boost book sales as has Sotomayor,
Sotomayor’s publisher, Penguin Random House, also has played a role in organizing her talks, in some cases pressing public institutions to commit to buying a specific number of copies or requesting that attendees purchase books to obtain tickets, emails show. The publisher has had several matters before the court in which Sotomayor did not recuse herself.
“Justice Sotomayor would have recused in cases in which Penguin Random House was a party, in light of her close and ongoing relationship with the publisher,” the Supreme Court said in a statement. “An inadvertent omission failed to bring Penguin’s participation in several cases to her attention; those cases ultimately were not selected for review by the Court. Chambers’ conflict check procedures have since been changed.”
Meh. That seems weak. Why recuse from a case that hasn’t even been selected for review?
It pretty much is in terms of conflict of interest.
Uh, because the justices decide what get’s reviewed, meaning there’s already a judgement there to begin with regarding what gets to be appealed - ie there’s already a review / judgement there. Why wouldn’t / shouldn’t there be a recusal there? It’s arguably even more important there, as the cases being appealed don’t get a public hearing before a decision is cast.
Yet more evidence that judicial restraint is a fiction. The original concept was that the judicial branch would police the legislative and executive branches but, in the interest of an independent judiciary, the judicial branch would police itself. Picking justices of stellar character would ensure that would work.It should be clear by now though that that yacht has sailed.
Time to impose checks and balances on the Supreme Court too which will hold their feet of clay to the fire like the rest of us.
You got a purdy mouth.
good opinion piece.
This is where there are too many failures on the court currently:
The more important, uncontroversial point is that if there will not be formal ethical constraints on our Supreme Court — or even if there will be — its justices must have functioning noses. They must keep themselves far from any conduct with a dubious aroma, even if it may not breach a formal rule.
1 Like
What I’m not hearing is whether this is a new problem or if it has been going on forever. If it’s a new problem what’s changed? If it’s been going on forever why is it no longer being overlooked?
It almost doesn’t matter if these are new issues or not - what makes it especially troubling is this court is explicitly saying eh, it doesn’t matter.
Why just pick on judges? The dirtiest part of government is often its procurement wing. Preferred vendors and the like, direct awards, bid procedures not being compliant to internal and international arrangements, etc. We are talking billions and billions in spending. I am sure lots of little blue fiefdoms in the North 
in the US considering urban spending is so much higher.
Another area of pus is not profits, which are often, accounting wise, not held to the same scrutiny/standards as private businesses. Why not investigate the Clinton Foundation? 
Often bid protest mechanisms, developed by municipalities or the federal government, are so complicated, you need teams of lawyers just to decipher. Huge deterrent to really going after procurement irregularities. And I am sure in Democratic Fiefdom cities, the ones that have had one-party rule for decades and decades, there are irregularities up the kazoo.
I am a nasty fucker but often morally right. Concerned about a little gift receiving with SCOTUS. Ok–but what I have referred to above is a lot bigger of a scab.
1 Like
It matters when looking to the motivation which is behind the renewed scrutiny, which as many have observed seems to stem from Democrats dissatisfaction with the political balance of power in the Supreme court and a desire to undermine and discredit the institution.
First, anti-court left-wing activist groups cook up some ethics “scandals.” These accusations are then laundered by complicit or credulous leftist media outlets for public consumption. Then, the bogus scoops are held up by partisans as proof of alleged wrongdoing. Everyone, other than perhaps the most gullible partisan hysteric, understands what’s happening.
2 Likes
Do you think these issues are cooked up, or do you see where there’s cause for concern?
1 Like
There may be, but if the source of the sudden scrutiny is due to partisan bias and if any findings are over amplified in significance by a partisan press core.
Then the claims are deserving of a lot closer inspection and a certain skepticism should be aroused that the “scandals” uncovered are the real story and not a co-ordinated attempt to undermine and discredit a SCOTUS that one party is unhappy with.
2 Likes
There’s a lot we know as facts that have been acknowledged by parties involved. This isn’t speculation. Let’s talk about it.
Not judges generally, but SCOTUS. Be ause other federal judges actually have a code of conduct they’re bound by, and because SCOTUS is the final appeal. There’s no recourse beyond them.
It’s good that the SWAMP is concerned about reforming the SCOTUS but I too question its real motivation.
2 Likes
2 Likes
Yeah, that one doesn’t seem like a problem. The problem is, gov’t ethics guidance is all about avoiding even the appearance of a conflict, so a clerk covering their way in a party is different than a former clerk who now works at a high power law firm with business in front of the court chipping in (and the article links to a quote which doesn’t exist, so…). When we have military on site, they won’t even accept a free cup of coffee.
The primary problem is SCOTUS (generally) doesn’t seem to give no fucks, at all. And no, the general issue isn’t generally new - especially SCOTUS travel - but some of the recent revelations are fucking crazy.
When career politicians and their kids are rolling in payola a free trip here and there probably just seems like business as usual.
Hunter Biden Net Worth $285 Million (FORBES) Ukraine Deals - Net Worth Club 2023.
2 Likes
Please tell me you don’t believe that link.