The Spouses Of Supreme Court Justices Shouldn't Be Forced To Disclose Anything

[Mac-7]

banning people from working is just silly.

Not at all

Its their choice

 

[BS Filter]

see post 61

The House and Senate have oversight over SCOTUS.

 

[meaner gene]

haha no it's not...there is nothing unethical or remotely close about a family friend helping out with schooling for a Justice's grand nephew...in particular when the family friend has no business before the Court.

Then why didn't Thomas report them? Financial disclosures are for the purpose of finding potential conflicts of interest "before" they become actual conflicts.

 

[meaner gene]

The House and Senate have oversight over SCOTUS.

Technically they only have oversight over what the court allows them to have oversight over.

The supreme court gets to decide the limits of congressional power over the court.

 

[Marener]

No one is forcing them to work for the government if they dont like the terms I have outlined

But their kids don’t work for the government and you would force them to abide by the terms.

What if the kids don’t like the terms you outlined? They have no recourse.

 

[Mac-7]

But their kids don’t work for the government and you would force them to abide by the terms.

What if the kids don’t like the terms you outlined? They have no recourse.

Adult children would be allowed to work

But not wives

 

[BS Filter]

Technically they only have oversight over what the court allows them to have oversight over.

The supreme court gets to decide the limits of congressional power over the court.

No, the Constitution gives congress the power to impeach and remove. What do you want?

 

[meaner gene]

Adult children would be allowed to work

But not wives

Its not about working, it's about what field they are working in.

And whether a justice has to recuse themselves when they are involved in litigate before the court.

 

[struth]

Not at all

Its their choice

not if you ban them...

 

[struth]

Then why didn't Thomas report them? Financial disclosures are for the purpose of finding potential conflicts of interest "before" they become actual conflicts.

Because he didn't have to.

Why didn't Justice Sodomayor recuse herself from the case involving the company that paid her over $3 Million dollars when the case came before her? Why didn't you all care?

Justice Sonia Sotomayor didnât recuse herself from cases involving publisher that paid her $3M: reportÂ

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t recuse herself from multiple cases involving a book publisher – Penguin Random House – which paid her more than $3 million since 2010, according t…

nypost.com

 

[meaner gene]

No, the Constitution gives congress the power to impeach and remove. What do you want?

As I pointed out, that was a pre-political party constitution.
The supreme court has even acknowledge the political deadlock between the two parties, and making decisions knowing that congress politically can't overrule.

Alito wrote Dobbs knowing congress has the constitutional power to codify Roe v Wade, but not the political power to.

 

[struth]

As I pointed out, that was a pre-political party constitution.
The supreme court has even acknowledge the political deadlock between the two parties, and making decisions knowing that congress politically can't overrule.

Alito wrote Dobbs knowing congress has the constitutional power to codify Roe v Wade, but not the political power to.

A Judge or Justice shouldn't be concerned with Congress or a legislature having the political power to do something when he/she makes their ruling. They make their rulings based on the current law.

 

[Mac-7]

not if you ban them...

What do you mean?

 

[meaner gene]

Because he didn't have to.

Why didn't Justice Sodomayor recuse herself from the case involving the company that paid her over $3 Million dollars when the case came before her? Why didn't you all care?

Justice Sonia Sotomayor didnât recuse herself from cases involving publisher that paid her $3M: reportÂ

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t recuse herself from multiple cases involving a book publisher – Penguin Random House – which paid her more than $3 million since 2010, according t…

nypost.com

I think that's the point. There are no standards for justices to recuse themselves, only requirements of disclosure which Sotomayor strictly followed. One justice recusing, while another didn't is the point, since as I said there are no standards.

But what is different in the Thomas case, is unlike Souther and Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas never reported what he was required to on his financial disclosure forms, so that nobody could even look for potential conflicts.

 

[Mac-7]

Its not about working, it's about what field they are working in.

And whether a justice has to recuse themselves when they are involved in litigate before the court.

That too complicated and filled with gray areas

 

[struth]

What do you mean?

you'd said you'd ban them from working did you not?

 

[BS Filter]

As I pointed out, that was a pre-political party constitution.
The supreme court has even acknowledge the political deadlock between the two parties, and making decisions knowing that congress politically can't overrule.

Alito wrote Dobbs knowing congress has the constitutional power to codify Roe v Wade, but not the political power to.

Looks like they did. So you disagree with the Supreme Court decision. Can't please everyone.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"Republican deep state shill defends deep state corruption. Film at 11."

go after supreme court spouses as soon as you go after democratic members of congress spouses for making millions.

 

[struth]

I think that's the point. There are no standards for justices to recuse themselves, only requirements of disclosure which Sotomayor strictly followed. One justice recusing, while another didn't is the point, since as I said there are no standards.

But what is different in the Thomas case, is unlike Souther and Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas never reported what he was required to on his financial disclosure forms, so that nobody could even look for potential conflicts.

Of course there are standards...at any point that there impartility might be reasonably questioned, where they have personal bias or prejudice.

There are no requirements for disclosure. What Judge recused where one didnt?

The differene between Thomas and Sotomayor, is that there was NO case in front of the Court involving the family friend...unlike Sotomayor. There was no actual conflict.

 

[meaner gene]

A Judge or Justice shouldn't be concerned with Congress or a legislature having the political power to do something when he/she makes their ruling. They make their rulings based on the current law.

As I have pointed out, the supreme court has politicized itself. By looking at the legislatures ability to over ride their rulings. And where they find the politics to be deadlocked, making bold rulings only they know there isn't the political will to reverse them.