Waldo JaquithJustice Neil Gorsuch tried to sell his Colorado house and 40 acres of land. Two years went by, nothing. Then he was appointed to the Supreme Court. Nine days later, he sold the property to the CEO of Greenberg Traurig, one of the nation's largest law firms that routinely has cases before the Supreme Court. Gorsuch declared the sale on his next financial disclosure report, but left blank the box labeled "Identity of buyer/seller." https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/25/neil-gorsuch-colorado-property-sale-00093579
Perhaps it’s a bombastic and partisan position to take, but I think it is bad to have Supreme Court justices who are above the law and appear to be accepting bribes. I’m against it.
I forecast that we’re a few months away from it becoming a Republican talking point that it’s Actually Good for (Republican) Supreme Court justices to accept bribes and be above the law. This is what the founders intended, etc.
Lyle Solla-Yates@waldoj if money is speech, isn’t it the responsibility of our most prominent public servants to absorb as much free speech as possible? (Sarcastic font)
Gregory Hays@waldoj This is right (though I think it will be sooner—weeks or even days) and I am putting money down now that it will be Jonathan Turley who kicks off the campaign.
WndlB@waldoj It is (likely) American "history and tradition."
@waldoj more seriously, Mr. Jefferson’s criticisms of Court power are looking more and more prescient as the Court continues or resumes its descent https://www.nytimes.com/1861/06/23/archives/jefferson-on-the-supreme-court.html
@Lyle He was a smart guy!
Dieu@waldoj of course, what the founders intended is determined by SC judges.
Frank Bennett 🇯🇵@waldoj The more money they have, the more independent they are. That much should be obvious, but for evidence we need look no further than the common phrase "independently wealthy." All citizens are free to participate in supporting the independence of the judiciary, but it is a happy circumstance that some stand ready to relieve their less fortunate countrymen of that burden.
William Witteman@waldoj Of course, because the Justices are being bribed by "our people". It's similar to how police are forgiven for unlimited violence, incompetence, and theft, as long as that behaviour is mainly directed at the poor and minorities.
@waldoj A man ahead of his time... 😀
Don Whiteside@waldoj it’s really fascinating to see how many people offer up - and how many accept - some variation of “well that’s just how it is when you hang out with billionaires” as if it’s reasonable and relatable.
Barry Goldman@waldoj even IN th law, 9 ppl to decide for 330,000,000?!? Ludicrous species!
Jurann@waldoj I neither think it's bombastic nor partisan - it's not appropriate for ANY public servant to be taking bribes. And any appearance of such should, of course, be investigated by an unbiased third party. The higher ranking the public servant in question, the more urgent and thorough the investigation should be, IMO.