You say that as if supreme court justices aren't also for sale.
We need a solution for bribery (including current forms of "legal" bribery).
We need a solution for bribery (including current forms of "legal" bribery).
Is this something that's recent you're seeing? I haven't done any research to find out if this has been a thing for the entire time the court has been around. I just know the media has suddenly gone after the justices since the courts majority changed from liberal to conservative for the first time in its existence.
Not at all: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era
Despite Anthony Kennedy not voting with the conservative bloc 100% of the time, he voted with them far more often than with the liberal bloc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehnquist_Court is probably a better timeline for when the court changed from liberal to conservative.
[1] https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-un...
[2] https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2023/09/new-filings-reveal-...
"Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor reportedly accepted nearly $2 million from Penguin Random House in a book deal, and then went on to sit in judgment of a copyright case involving that same company the following year."
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/may/4/sonia-sotoma...
Or the way she prodded institutions where she spoke to buy her books?
"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."
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/11/1187005372/sonia-sotomayor-su...
Pot meet Kettle. Kettle meet Pot.
You do know the rules for disclosure were changed recently right? The ProPublica article used Thomas past dealings and then applied the recent changes to those dealings. That would seem, I don't know, a bit underhanded in their reporting no?
"The Smearing of Clarence Thomas"
Wall St Journal
April 2023
But it seems clear that the Court’s rules at the time all of this happened did not require that gifts of personal hospitality be disclosed. This includes the private plane trips. ProPublica fails to make clear to readers that the U.S. Judicial Conference recently changed its rules to require more disclosure. The new rules took effect last month.
Justice Thomas would have been obliged to disclose gifts that posed a conflict of interest involving cases that would be heard by the High Court. But there is no evidence that Mr. Crow has had any such business before the Court, and Mr. Crow says he has “never asked about a pending or lower court case.”
So then to review:
- Thomas had no obligation to disclose his trips
- The person he went on the trips with had no business before the court, nor did he ever inquire about any of the court's business.
- Thomas has said he will adhere to the new disclosure rules.
Yet:
- Sotomayor took $2M from a publisher who DID have business with the court
- Sotomayor was one of their clients and had an obvious conflict of interest
- She refused to recuse herself and ruled (shockingly) in favor of her beneficiary
And your take here is Thomas' was worst than Sotomayor's?
Maybe he is smeared for a reason?