Justice Sotomayor actually took money from a group and then ruled on their case....crickets from the left...

[2aguy]

And since the racists in the democrat party only target conservative black men who will not bend the knee......the "Wise Latina," who takes money and then hears cases about the people giving her money.....she will get a pass.....since the point is to take over the court by getting rid of or controlling conservatives on the court, and roberts...the spineless one...

When the publishing giant had key cases come to the court, Sotomayor never recused — and those cases went away:

In 2010, she got a $1.2 million book advance from Knopf Doubleday Group, a part of the conglomerate. In 2012, she reported receiving two advance payments from the publisher totaling $1.9 million.
In 2013, Sotomayor voted in a decision for whether the court should hear a case against the publisher called Aaron Greenspan v. Random House, despite then-fellow Justice Stephen Breyer recusing after also receiving money from the publisher. Greenspan was a Harvard classmate of Mark Zuckerberg’s who wrote a book about the founding of Facebook and contended that Random House rejected his book proposal and then awarded a deal to another author who copied his book and eventually turned it into the movie The Social Network.
In 2017, Sotomayor began receiving payments each year from Penguin Random House itself, which continued annually through at least 2021, the most recent disclosure available, and totaled more than $500,000. In all, she received $3.6 million from Penguin Random House or its subsidiaries, according to a Daily Wire tally of financial disclosures.
In October 2019, children’s author Jennie Nicassio petitioned the Supreme Court to hear her lawsuit against Penguin Random House alleging that the book publisher had copied her book by selling one that was nearly identical. On the same day that the petition was distributed to the justices, Sotomayor received a $10,586 check from the publisher.

Stephen Breyer also received a healthy amount of income from Penguin Randomhouse, but on a far lower scale than Sotomayor, Rosiak reports. However, Breyer recused himself from cases involving his publisher. We know this because recusals are always publicly declared, even if votes on cert applications are not. We don’t know how Sotomayor voted on these decisions to hear appeals, but we know that Sotomayor voted on them despite the clear and rather massive conflict of interest.

While we're talking SCOTUS ethics ... what about Sotomayor's?

hotair.com

 

[Mac-7]

I think its easy to conclude that people in high places and in both parties are greedy bastards who compromise themselves for money

What a shame it is for America

 

[eagle7-31]

I think its easy to conclude that people in high places and in both parties are greedy bastards who compromise themselves for money

What a shame it is for America

Quite true for the most part.

 

[Nostra]

Different.

This is REAL conflict of interest.

 

[pknopp]

Because a body of men, holding themselves accountable to nobody, ought not to be trusted by anybody.

Thomas Paine

 

[bodecea]

And since the racists in the democrat party only target conservative black men who will not bend the knee......the "Wise Latina," who takes money and then hears cases about the people giving her money.....she will get a pass.....since the point is to take over the court by getting rid of or controlling conservatives on the court, and roberts...the spineless one...

When the publishing giant had key cases come to the court, Sotomayor never recused — and those cases went away:



Stephen Breyer also received a healthy amount of income from Penguin Randomhouse, but on a far lower scale than Sotomayor, Rosiak reports. However, Breyer recused himself from cases involving his publisher. We know this because recusals are always publicly declared, even if votes on cert applications are not. We don’t know how Sotomayor voted on these decisions to hear appeals, but we know that Sotomayor voted on them despite the clear and rather massive conflict of interest.

While we're talking SCOTUS ethics ... what about Sotomayor's?

hotair.com

Then, it should be investigated.

 

[bodecea]

Different.

Should be investigated to see if it is the same or different.

 

[Mac-7]

Most Americans who are getting by on just a fraction of what top members of government receive cannot understand why $250,000 plus a year is not enough

Why do such people need side hustles that skirt the law?

There is a huge lack of ethics at the top of our government

 

[jwoodie]

Should be investigated to see if it is the same or different.

The difference is that Conservative see unethical behavior as a moral problem, whereas Progressives see it as a political tactic.

 

[Lord Long Rod]

The wise old LaTeeena jurist apparently needs a refreshment on ethics.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

My only take away from all these threads on the SCOTUS is that a LIFETIME appointment is no longer appropriate.

Like all of our elected crooks they take advantage of their status and as a result we DESPERATELY NEED term limits for ALL OF THEM

 

[1srelluc]

Damn, she does not even do Latina right.....No kids!

So she didn't even put one through school with that "ill-gotten" money.

 

[WEATHER53]

Indeed she is a wise Latina
Good money stuffer also

 

[RhodyPatriot]

And since the racists in the democrat party only target conservative black men who will not bend the knee......the "Wise Latina," who takes money and then hears cases about the people giving her money.....she will get a pass.....since the point is to take over the court by getting rid of or controlling conservatives on the court, and roberts...the spineless one...

When the publishing giant had key cases come to the court, Sotomayor never recused — and those cases went away:



Stephen Breyer also received a healthy amount of income from Penguin Randomhouse, but on a far lower scale than Sotomayor, Rosiak reports. However, Breyer recused himself from cases involving his publisher. We know this because recusals are always publicly declared, even if votes on cert applications are not. We don’t know how Sotomayor voted on these decisions to hear appeals, but we know that Sotomayor voted on them despite the clear and rather massive conflict of interest.

While we're talking SCOTUS ethics ... what about Sotomayor's?

hotair.com

Oh yeah? Well...


SHUT UP BIGOT!!!

 

[Lord Long Rod]

My only take away from all these threads on the SCOTUS is that a LIFETIME appointment is no longer appropriate.

Like all of our elected crooks they take advantage of their status and as a result we DESPERATELY NEED term limits for ALL OF THEM

Yeah, because a hammer jockey knows what's best for all of us.

 

[francoHFW]

good book!!