In 2023 Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch were criticized after news articles revealed they had personal financial transactions with people who had interest in court decisions. Politico reported that Justice Gorsuch sold a vacation property to the CEO of a prominent law firm which often brings cases before the court. ProPublica that a Texas oil executive had purchased multiple properties from Justice Thomas which the justice did not disclose. The Supreme Court sets its own ethics rules and leaves justices to make their own decisions about when and how to report outside gifts and income.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Voting for candidate:
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
No
@9FM5QT41yr1Y
Supreme Court justices have the right to do whatever they want because the government should protect individual liberties.
Oh dammit..
NO..
If you can't see why this is inherently wrong, then me taking the time to try and convince you of that, well that's just stupid.
@9DM5VBP2yrs2Y
Abolish the supreme court
@9GZDTYYIndependent1yr1Y
No, it is the duty of the justices of the Supreme Court to be completely unbiased and fair in their decisions, which is encouraged by the fact that getting onto the Supreme Court is the last career move for a justice. The justices should not be prohibited from making transactions with people who have a vested interest in court outcomes because the justice shouldn't be influenced by such things anyway, and if they are then that means that Congress failed in their interview and the FBI failed in their investigation to prove the nature of the justice, or that the president made a politically motivated decision in their recess appointment of a justice. And of course, if a justice is truly not being unbiased and is accepting bribes from parties with vested interest(s) in the court ruling(s), judicial impeachment exists for that reason.
@9J75RW7Progressive1yr1Y
Are you familiar with the term "conflict of interest"? We don't expect the judges to be completely unbiased, we expect them to recognize their biases and act accordingly. Plus, are you familiar with the people who are now sitting on the Supreme Court?
@9C69K682yrs2Y
Yes, and abolish the Supreme Court.
Deleted2yrs2Y
Yes, and abolish the supreme court
@9RXP9KX7mos7MO
No, in that a justice can accept gifts from outside influencers but not actually vote the way they want them to
@9CJ28DQIndependent2yrs2Y
@9D3RPBQ2yrs2Y
It should be strictly prohibited, and court justices should be heavily regulated
Yes. I'm okay with court having their own ethics rule and would like to keep other branches of the government out of it in order to maintain the balance of power. So yes, the issue should be handled internally while keeping other branches and DOJ out of it while also making the other justices aware providing them the ability to vote on the matter. But yes I agree it should be prohibited or disincentivized.
@9BNZ2RT2yrs2Y
Yes, but only during the tenure of the court case.
@B3BCG7X2wks2W
Supreme Court justices should not be giving out "gifts" in order to win the people who have interest in the court decisions.
@B35MMFQ3wks3W
Depending on the nature of the purchase (I.e. what's being bought and price negotiation), but generally yes.
@B358X8M3wks3W
No, but the standard of recusing themselves from conflicts of interest needs to be maintained and upheld.
@B2SZWC91mo1MO
All political figures should be prohibited from making financial transactions with political interest groups.
Yes, under some circumstances. The question is too broad and doesn’t allow for trivial circumstances like purchasing auto parts from a local parts store.
@B2MGDXB1mo1MO
Not necessarily prohibited but I think someone should be allowed to look into it if such an instance occurs
@B2KPRPH2mos2MO
This is complicated because as individuals within capitalism, the justices will need to make financial transactions as private citizens. Their transactions must be closely monitored by independent auditors.
@B2K4ZKL2mos2MO
I wanted to say yes because internal corruption is a driving point for me, and I want to look at the libertarian party rather than the current dominating parties. However, I also want to say no because I believe letting people do what they would naturally do can lead to better evidence of whether or not someone is truly being bribed in a high position of power like that. I want transparency for positions that have such power to alter another person's life.
@ArghhGeeDub 2mos2MO
YES, if they do so they should be rightfully removed by the others sitting with them. If all of them are beneficiaries of financial transactions, we should have a process to forcibly remove them.
@B29QLXY2mos2MO
No, in that a judge can accept gifts but not actually vote the way the giver tries to coerce them to
@B273GXVLibertarian 3mos3MO
No but there should be more transparency and disclose any transactions with any individual or group with a vested interest
@9ZZNQD2Republican3mos3MO
As long as this was simply a transaction/business deal then I see no issue. However if there is constant communication and talk of favors the supreme court justice must recuse themself from whatever case it is.
@9ZWC3CY3mos3MO
Yes, bind SCOTUS members to an enforceable code of conduct and ethics agreement to ensure accountability and address corruption
@9ZTQ4J74mos4MO
Yes and any judge found guilty of doing so should be immediately fired arrested and have all benefits taken.
@9ZLWXN2 4mos4MO
Yes, their salary should be increased, their finances should be put in a trust, and they should not be allowed to receive gifts beyond a certain threshold
@9ZQWTZ64mos4MO
No, in that a justice can accept gifts from someone but not actually vote the way they intend to convince them to
@9ZQPHSH4mos4MO
No. The government will not infringe on a persons right to life, liberty or property without due process. Denial of access to judges to pursue financial interest that could but don’t sway the justice is a case of pre trial judgement that any action on this line is illegal. This is a sentence without a trial.
@9ZPZ3QF4mos4MO
This is too broad of a question for a simple "yes" or "no". Yes, justices on the Supreme Court should not be able to make or receive monetary transactions on the basis of a ruling by somebody in favor of said ruling, which is basically considered bribery, but then again, the financial spending of justices, if separate from cases they are hearing or heard, should be their own business. It's dependent on the context of the spending.
@9ZPGK3Y4mos4MO
That's more of an individual decision and if any wrongdoing is proven the person shall face the consequences
@9ZDHGHP4mos4MO
Case-by-case basis, but investigations should be undergone, with corresponding punishment if guilty, if there is an egregious case
Yes, but only if the people have a vested interest in a case they are currently reviewing or going to review in the future
@9YCJXHQ 4mos4MO
Yes, but supreme judges should be compensated to the highest degree as with other important public seats.
@9Y93KP94mos4MO
No, because there is no way to know what cases will come up in the future. They should be treated the same as politicians, no bribes allowed, but normal life transactions should not be prohibited.
@9Y4Z3GF4mos4MO
no, it is the duty of a judge to rule fairly and without personal bias and if they cannot fulfill these requirements because of personal business, they should be removed from position
@83BYVHGIndependent 4mos4MO
No, but they should be required to disclose all transactions, and recuse themselves from trials were they could be biased.
@9XXWXRY4mos4MO
There needs to be clear proof as to why they had a transaction and that it had nothing to do with court cases
@9X86R594mos4MO
No~ the sale of properties at a fair rate is a very different situation than something that could be conceived as a bribe.
@9X76J98Libertarian5mos5MO
Yes, with an exception for minor transactions (eg, a Judge can buy a Coca-Cola at the gas station even if Coca-Cola holds a vested interest in a suit)
@9X6NHQQ5mos5MO
No, but the financial transactions with people who have a vested interest in court outcomes should be reported.
@9W6T4LVIndependent5mos5MO
No, but all actions should be fully public information and they should be expected to recuse themselves from any cases where their financial actions are impactful.
Yes. If it is determined a Supreme Court Justice has been involved in such transactions their seat at the Supreme Court should be revoked immediately.
@9W27KV95mos5MO
Yes, and if proven to have benefitted personally from these outcomes, the SC justice should be removed from the bench.
@9VZPJZ95mos5MO
No, as long as it is clear that the transaction has no affiliation to the outcome of court cases, anybody should be able to sell anybody their property.
@9VWPX4G5mos5MO
Yes, there should be a written and enforced Code of Ethics for Supreme Court Justices, just like any other judge.
@9VTX2YF5mos5MO
No, but I think that there needs to be monitoring of any transactional situations between Supreme Court justices and people who have a vested interest in court outcomes.
@9VTCYCT5mos5MO
No, in that they can accept gifts and not actually vote the way the giver of such gifts attempts to coerce them to
Yes, but it depends on the stance of if personal gain affects not just the person, but the wide consensus of America.
@9VNBHJT5mos5MO
Probably no, but they should be required to report all forms of income or financial benefit at all times during service
@9VKWC865mos5MO
The Supreme Court, as an independent branch of the Federal Government, should create and enforce their own ethical rules as they deem fit.
@JcawolfsonIndependent 5mos5MO
Yes, judges have an obligation to be fair and impartial, and allowance of financial transactions with parties involved with/in a specific case would be detrimental to the right to a fair trial
@9VKH5L5Libertarian5mos5MO
to not allow a judge to conduct transactions would be too restrictive but, as part of being a justice, any such transactions should be investigated closely.
@9VGP6JH5mos5MO
I think most would agree with the spirit of this question and that doing so would be unethical, but the way it is worded may be too broad. They may, and do in some cases, need to recuse themselves from certain cases. If you make it through the process to become one of the nine highest judges in the country, one would hope that you have attained the highest level of ethical practices as well.
@9VGG4P85mos5MO
They cannot lie in court about it, if they are asked about it they have to answer truthfully about the transaction and if it is deemed to disrupt the case, the other judges may vote to dismiss the judge from the case and determine how it impacted the case
@9VG25XBRepublican5mos5MO
Yes, but only if these purchases affect the judge's decision on a case involving that person/company.
@9V8D8SB5mos5MO
Yes, I think that this prohibition would maintain public trust in the judiciary, prevent conflict of interest, and avoid corruption.
@9V6J2VX6mos6MO
Yes, and the court should have an ethics policy that is strictly enforce to prevent conflicts of interest.
@9V2HLDJ 6mos6MO
These large transactions should be reported and they should not preside over cases when there a conflict of interests.
@6KDPPC7 6mos6MO
When members of Congress are no longer allowed to engage in insider trading then we can talk about the SCOTUS...
@9TVSQYTLibertarian6mos6MO
yes, but a strongly incentivized matching retirement plan should be created to replace their investments such as the TSP and should be mandatory for all people in politics to only invest in said fund until their civil service is done.
@9TS5LLR6mos6MO
Yes and judges at all levels, including the Supreme Court, should be required to recuse themselves from all cases involving the President who appointed them.
@9TSBX246mos6MO
Only if personal and possibly harmful, though buying and selling mundane things that has no political power should be accepted
@9TPGGSK6mos6MO
wording is too vague on this question. If someone is selling an item on a market place and a justice is shopping for an item like that, then they should be able to purchase it.
@9TL54R5 6mos6MO
Yes, if, by this, you mean a financial transaction that could be construed as a bribe by/for the recipient, and it should result in their immediate suspension and, if found guilty, immediate dismissal as a Justice.
@9TL2KJ5Republican6mos6MO
yes, and if they are found receiving money from those people they should be kicked out of office and never allowed to return.
They should be able to make those transactions but should be required to recuse themselves if they have a pre-existing relationship or financial interest in a case.
@9TGLYSD6mos6MO
Yes, and an independent third party should enforce recusals in cases where a justice holds a financial interest
@9TBM7NH6mos6MO
Depends upon the circumstances. If direct bribery can be proven then yes. If it’s a friend buying a nice trip or dinner after a case has been decided, no.
Yes, we need bipartisan laws to affirm the ethical standards of the bench and American people should have more voting rights in the prosecution and termination of ethics violaters.
@9T8MSTW6mos6MO
No, but to an extent - I think that there should be some sort of check/balance when reporting outside gifts, incomes and financial transactions with those who have a vested interest. I.E: Banned from making said transactions for any reason unless brought up to a certain third-party
@9T7KN4TRepublican6mos6MO
Transactions should be allowed but not hidden. If they are hidden it should be investigated or taken into note that there could be bias.
@7NN387N 6mos6MO
Yes, and implement strict laws to tackle any form of judicial corruption, the law should not be bought by anyone
@9T79S496mos6MO
Any such transactions should be disclosed and they should recuse themselves if there is a conflict of interest.
@9T76L766mos6MO
The Supreme Court should create and enforce their own ethics codes as they, as an independent branch of the government, deem appropriate. The political branches have other mechanisms to check the Courts (i.e., impeachment and confirmation)
@9KWBRNBIndependent12mos12MO
Yes, I guess, at least if the transaction or gift is large enough (e.g. giving a >$100 gift to a friend/family member at birthday/Christmas); maybe they should report outside gifts/income.
@9KWBRNBIndependent12mos12MO
I guess, at least if the transaction or gift is large enough (e.g. giving a >$100 gift to a friend/family member at birthday/Christmas); maybe they should report outside gifts/income.
@9KMYVV81yr1Y
Yes, but only to the extent that the person's interest is a financial one and it is legally cognizable.
@9KLCVDR1yr1Y
Yes, anything that would be considered conflict of interest in a regular court should be prohibited in the Supreme Court
@9KHD9C81yr1Y
Yes, and so should anybody in public office, especially at the federal level where their decisions can have economic consequences.
@9KH7ZYH1yr1Y
It's important to prevent corruption within the supreme court and supreme Court judges should have strict rules of engagement with others including the inability to make transactions of money with someone who has a vested interest in court outcomes. It would be unethical if people can bribe a judge to make decisions.
@9KB3SRS 1yr1Y
No, but they should recuse themselves from the cases the people they have transactions with have a vested interest in, and if this results in an even number of justices hearings the case, and they cannot reach a majority decision, then the case should be either dismissed or retried at a later date, which is up to the justices’ discretion
@9K83B481yr1Y
I would say if there are any findings that a Judge is involved with a case before SCOTUS, they should recuse themselves from the case.
No, but since they're going to do it anyway, there has to be some implemented system of oversight as the courts really have no check other than what equates to not much more than "the honor system."
@A_Star3 1yr1Y
I don't approve, but Justices should be allowed to follow through these transactions without legal complications, provided that they disclose these situations and deals beforehand. If found that they didn't openly state their "outside gifts and income", then legal matters can take place according to how severe the claims are.
@9K6PYMD1yr1Y
If they feel like it is honestly an issue within the justice system then make more rules to regulate and specify when and how certain gifts and incentives get exchanged through the court members
@9K3JZ761yr1Y
No, but judges should recuse themselves if they have directly profited in the past from a party to case being heard.
@StarSwordDemocrat 1yr1Y
Yes, and require Supreme Court justices to place all their own financial assets in a blind trust for the duration of their term on the court
@9JZRHX91yr1Y
No, they should be free to make their own financial decisions but they should be required to disclose economic activities that show relevant biases
@9JZQG8T1yr1Y
Yes. Appointed and elected government officials should be prohibited from trading on their positions of power and authority.
@9JYXZ2X1yr1Y
It depends on what the service the justice is purchasing. Ultimately, a justice is an individual who should be able to buy whatever they want based on there wants/needs. If private companies can enact "conflict of interest" policies, then the government should be under the same scrutiny to eliminate corruption.
@9JYKV3V1yr1Y
No but the justice should recuse him/herself if a case arises in which there a justice has made financial transactions with people vested or involved in that specific case.
@9J967Q2 1yr1Y
Yes, and making financial transactions with people who have a vested interest in court outcomes should be criminalized.
@9J643BR1yr1Y
No, but they should be public record and Supreme Court Justices should be impeached if their decision is affected by it (and that is proven).
@9HRB4851yr1Y
Yes, and they should disclose and recuse themselves from any case where they might benefit financially from a certain outcome.
@9HQW27P 1yr1Y
All such conflicts of interest should be disallowed and grounds for impeachment. Keep them all in a locked box
@9HNPFFT1yr1Y
No, but if it appears to have swayed their opinion in an unconstitutional way then impeachment proceedings should take place to investigate if the justice should be removed from office.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
