Well, it looks like George Santos might be reaping the whirlwind of his creative additions to his "resume" when he was running for office.
It also looks Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch chose not to recuse themselves from a case involving their publisher. Gorsuch apparently has received thousands of dollars in advances/royalties from the publisher, while Sotomayor has received millions. Fortunately retired justice Breyer did make the ethical choice and did recuse himself from cases involving companies he held stick in.
There have also been reports of a DFL congresswoman who miraculously managed to sell her stock in the most recent failed bank, while miraculously putting that money into JPMC stock before they bought the assets of the failed bank.
Finally, while Justice Thomas took the bulk of the criticism, it looks like a significant number of SCOTUS justices have rich, generous friends who do lots of stuff for them. It doesn't look great, but as long as there is no direct conflict, I'm not sure that much can be done about it.
Finally, we still have absolutely no idea who leaked the Roe decision from the Court. Most people have concluded that it was a staffer for one of the liberal justices, but somehow they've been unable to track the leaker down.
4 comments:
I believe Alito claims to know who leaked the Dobbs stuff, but I don't know why he won't or can't say who it is.
The attacks on Thomas have nothing to do with improprieties, but with the left's determination to inflate the slightest appearance of it to avenge Thomas having the unmitigated audacity to rule on a Constitutional basis. This cannot be if one hopes to further a foul agenda, such as "LGBTQ+ rights", "abortion rights" and other such leftist loves.
Until the leaker is identified publicly, charged, tried and punished, it really doesn't matter what Alito claims to know.
The point in mentioning Thomas is not to imply the he did anything wrong, but to point out that he wasn't alone in accepting gifts from friends. Again, it's the double standard that is the issue here.
It's not at all the mere accepting gifts from friends. That's absurd to think anyone in government must be suspect simply because of generous friends. What matters is the existence of any possibility that one has altered their official behaviors BECAUSE of having received a gift...as in a quid pro quo. By the standards suggested in the Thomas non-issue, one can't accept a cup of coffee covered by a friend. That's complete and utter bullshit. A cup of coffee, a free vacation...who cares? If one can't produce any evidence that a government official did what he wouldn't do anyway because of the gift, then shut the hell up.
Art,
Thanks for reiterating part of my point. I know that accepting gifts from friends is not enough to allege wrongdoing. The point I was emphasizing is that the MSM chose to only trumpet the gifts Thomas received, while ignoring the gifts received by others. Especially the failure of liberal justices to recuse themselves from cases where they'd received millions from parties to litigation in front of SCOTUS.
Post a Comment