SCOTUS

[raison de arizona]

Roberts imo is basically saying here, you're not the boss of me, and we already have ethic rules. Never mind that they are being flagrantly violated by at least two conservative justices. Nanny nanny boo boo.

[raison de arizona]

Oh look who else is flaunting ethics rules. I'm sooo surprised. They're all dirty, bought and paid for.

Whistleblower documents show that Chief Justice John Roberts’s wife Jane Roberts made over $10 million as a legal recruiter. A staggering amount.

The problem? The couple never disclosed that firms paying Jane had matters before John. Corruption.

[AndyinPA]

Gee, what a surprise.

[much ado]

Business Insider article...

Jane Roberts, who is married to Chief Justice John Roberts, made $10.3 million in commissions from elite law firms, whistleblower documents show

Two years after John Roberts' confirmation as the Supreme Court's chief justice in 2005, his wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, made a pivot. After a long and distinguished career as a lawyer, she refashioned herself as a legal recruiter, a matchmaker who pairs job-hunting lawyers up with corporations and firms.

Roberts told a friend that the change was motivated by a desire to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest, given that her husband was now the highest-ranking judge in the country. "There are many paths to the good life," she said. "There are so many things to do if you're open to change and opportunity."

And life was indeed good for the Robertses, at least for the years 2007 to 2014. During that eight-year stretch, according to internal records from her employer, Jane Roberts generated a whopping $10.3 million in commissions, paid out by corporations and law firms for placing high-dollar lawyers with them.

That eye-popping figure comes from records in a whistleblower complaint filed by a disgruntled former colleague of Roberts, who says that as the spouse of the most powerful judge in the United States, the income she earns from law firms who practice before the Court should be subject to public scrutiny.

"When I found out that the spouse of the chief justice was soliciting business from law firms, I knew immediately that it was wrong," the whistleblower, Kendal B. Price, who worked alongside Jane Roberts at the legal recruiting firm Major, Lindsey & Africa, told Insider in an interview. "During the time I was there, I was discouraged from ever raising the issue. And I realized that even the law firms who were Jane's clients had nowhere to go. They were being asked by the spouse of the chief justice for business worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, and there was no one to complain to. Most of these firms were likely appearing or seeking to appear before the Supreme Court. It's natural that they'd do anything they felt was necessary to be competitive."

Roberts' apparent $10.3 million in compensation puts her toward the top of the payscale for legal headhunters. Price's disclosures, which were filed under federal whistleblower-protection laws and are now in the hands of the House and Senate Judiciary committees, add to the mounting questions about how Supreme Court justices and their families financially benefit from their special status, an area that Senate Democrats are vowing to investigate after a series of disclosure lapses by the justices themselves.

[pipistrelle]

Puts new light on the Roberts 'neener-neener' letter.

[Slim Cognito]

More like a supernova.

[RTH10260]

Senate investigation into Brett Kavanaugh assault claims contained serious omissions
The 2018 investigation into the then supreme court nominee claimed there was ‘no evidence’ behind claims of sexual assault. Plus, the legacy of Jerry Springer

Nicola Slawson
Fri 28 Apr 2023 11.32 BST

A 2018 Senate investigation that found there was “no evidence” to substantiate any of the claims of sexual assault against US supreme court justice Brett Kavanaugh contained serious omissions, according to information obtained by the Guardian.

The 28-page report was released by the Republican senator Chuck Grassley, the then chair of the Senate judiciary committee. It prominently included an unfounded and unverified claim that one of Kavanaugh’s accusers – a fellow Yale graduate named Deborah Ramirez – was “likely” mistaken when she alleged that Kavanaugh had exposed himself to her at a dormitory party because another Yale student was allegedly known for such acts.

The suggestion that Kavanaugh was the victim of mistaken identity was sent to the judiciary committee by a Colorado-based attorney named Joseph C Smith Jr, according to a non-redacted copy of a 2018 email obtained by the Guardian. Smith was a friend and former colleague of the judiciary committee’s then lead counsel, Mike Davis.

Smith was also a member of the Federalist Society, which strongly supported Kavanaugh’s supreme court nomination, and appears to have a professional relationship with the Federalist Society’s co-founder Leonard Leo, whom he thanked in the acknowledgments of his book Under God: George Washington and the Question of Church and State.

• What do the omissions mean? The revelations raise questions about apparent efforts to downplay and discredit accusations of sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh and exclude evidence that supported an alleged victim’s claims.
• What else has come to light since the report was written? A new documentary – an early version of which premiered at Sundance in January, but is being updated before its release – contains a never-before-heard recording of another Yale graduate, Max Stier, describing a separate alleged incident in which he said he witnessed Kavanaugh exposing himself at a party at Yale.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... -omissions

[Kriselda Gray]

Gee, what a surprise.

Well, I'm getting a clearer picture of why Roberts doesn't seem to want to do anything about the ethical issues of other justices... he's got his own to hide.

[raison de arizona]

Utilize the power of the purse to force ethics on the court?

Like I've been saying for months and years... if Congress cut the funding of SCOTUS, SCOTUS would submit to Congressional ethical oversight.

The Court is asking for 151 million dollars from Congress. Cut it in half unless SCOTUS agrees to ethics reform.

[AndyinPA]

[Dr. Ken]

Another day another instance of Thomas's corruption revealed

[raison de arizona]

This is not the same thing as Thomas (or Roberts, or Kavanaugh,) not even the same league. But yeah, still bad. SCOTUS is clearly unable to manage their own ethical concerns, they need some sort of outside help to keep them on the straight and narrow. I'm not sure what form that should take, but it is dearly needed.

Conservatives Call Out Sotomayor's $3M from Publisher Amid Thomas Reports

The legitimacy of the Supreme Court is being questioned—this time by conservatives— following a report that Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not recuse herself in a case that involved her book publisher.

She reportedly received a $1.2 million book advance in 2010 from Knopf Doubleday Group, a subsidiary of Penguin Random House. Two years, she received two advance payments from the publisher totaling $1.9 million.

In 2013, Sotomayor voted in a decision on whether the court should hear a case against the publisher called Aaron Greenspan v. Random House. Now-retired Justice Stephen Breyer, who had received money from the book publisher, recused himself in that case.

https://www.newsweek.com/conservatives- ... ts-1798460

► Show Spoiler

► Show Spoiler

[chancery]

I'm not sure I follow this. Authors and publishing companies in general have different economic interests. They may share an interest in the commercial success of a book written by the author and published by the company, but I don't think that the relationship would ordinarily be called a joint-venture or partnership.

The author obviously doesn't share in the publisher's overall profits.

If the works of a successful author were a small publisher's only major publications, it might get more complicated, but that's not the case here.

Breyer, by contrast was a shareholder in Penguin.

[raison de arizona]

They paid her $3M, she ruled in their favor. I dunno if that is a conflict or not according to their ethical guidelines, but it sure feels like one to me.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

It doesn’t pass the smell test for me.

[chancery]

Yeah, I'm beginning to see why.

[Dave from down under]

Time to increase SCOTUS to 15 so those with conflicts of interest can recluse and still have enough justices to hear matters.

[raison de arizona]

This is just more infuriating with each passing day. Imma pop a gasket.

Judicial activist directed fees to Clarence Thomas’s wife, urged ‘no mention of Ginni’
Leonard Leo told GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway to bill nonprofit, then use money to pay spouse of Supreme Court justice

Conservative judicial activist Leonard Leo arranged for the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to be paid tens of thousands of dollars for consulting work just over a decade ago, specifying that her name be left off billing paperwork, according to documents reviewed by The Washington Post.

In January 2012, Leo instructed the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway to bill a nonprofit group he advises and use that money to pay Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the documents show. The same year, the nonprofit, the Judicial Education Project, filed a brief to the Supreme Court in a landmark voting rights case.

Leo, a key figure in a network of nonprofits that has worked to support the nominations of conservative judges, told Conway that he wanted her to “give” Ginni Thomas “another $25K,” the documents show. He emphasized that the paperwork should have “No mention of Ginni, of course.”

Conway’s firm, the Polling Company, sent the Judicial Education Project a $25,000 bill that day. Per Leo’s instructions, it listed the purpose as “Supplement for Constitution Polling and Opinion Consulting,” the documents show.

In all, according to the documents, the Polling Company paid Thomas’s firm, Liberty Consulting, $80,000 between June 2011 and June 2012, and it expected to pay $20,000 more before the end of 2012. The documents reviewed by The Post do not indicate the precise nature of any work Thomas did for the Judicial Education Project or the Polling Company.

The arrangement reveals that Leo, a longtime Federalist Society leader and friend of the Thomases, has functioned not only as an ideological ally of Clarence Thomas’s but also has worked to provide financial remuneration to his family. And it shows Leo arranging for the money to be drawn from a nonprofit that soon would have an interest before the court.

Gift link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investig ... RLQtDjba-8

[Gregg]

This is not the same thing as Thomas (or Roberts, or Kavanaugh,) not even the same league. But yeah, still bad. SCOTUS is clearly unable to manage their own ethical concerns, they need some sort of outside help to keep them on the straight and narrow. I'm not sure what form that should take, but it is dearly needed.

Conservatives Call Out Sotomayor's $3M from Publisher Amid Thomas Reports

The legitimacy of the Supreme Court is being questioned—this time by conservatives— following a report that Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not recuse herself in a case that involved her book publisher.

She reportedly received a $1.2 million book advance in 2010 from Knopf Doubleday Group, a subsidiary of Penguin Random House. Two years, she received two advance payments from the publisher totaling $1.9 million.

In 2013, Sotomayor voted in a decision on whether the court should hear a case against the publisher called Aaron Greenspan v. Random House. Now-retired Justice Stephen Breyer, who had received money from the book publisher, recused himself in that case.

https://www.newsweek.com/conservatives- ... ts-1798460

► Show Spoiler

► Show Spoiler

I see no problem with that beyond optics. She is receiving payments according to a contract signed before she was a Justice. That's not something that could be tied to trying to influence the case, she was entitled to those payments no matter what.

[Kendra]

Kellyanne Conway on Fox News downplays her role in funneling payments to Ginni Thomas, and also portrays the Thomas as victims

[Dr. Ken]

This is not the same thing as Thomas (or Roberts, or Kavanaugh,) not even the same league. But yeah, still bad. SCOTUS is clearly unable to manage their own ethical concerns, they need some sort of outside help to keep them on the straight and narrow. I'm not sure what form that should take, but it is dearly needed.

Conservatives Call Out Sotomayor's $3M from Publisher Amid Thomas Reports

The legitimacy of the Supreme Court is being questioned—this time by conservatives— following a report that Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not recuse herself in a case that involved her book publisher.

She reportedly received a $1.2 million book advance in 2010 from Knopf Doubleday Group, a subsidiary of Penguin Random House. Two years, she received two advance payments from the publisher totaling $1.9 million.

In 2013, Sotomayor voted in a decision on whether the court should hear a case against the publisher called Aaron Greenspan v. Random House. Now-retired Justice Stephen Breyer, who had received money from the book publisher, recused himself in that case.

https://www.newsweek.com/conservatives- ... ts-1798460

► Show Spoiler

► Show Spoiler

I see no problem with that beyond optics. She is receiving payments according to a contract signed before she was a Justice. That's not something that could be tied to trying to influence the case, she was entitled to those payments no matter what.

And didn't she actually write the book she was paid for?

[bob]

She is receiving payments according to a contract signed before she was a Justice. That's not something that could be tied to trying to influence the case, she was entitled to those payments no matter what.

Code of Conduct for United States Judges* Canon 3(C)(1)(c):

A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which ... the judge knows that the judge, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge’s spouse or minor child residing in the judge’s household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding

"Substantially" is doing all the work, as it is unlikely one book's contract would be substantial to a proceeding involving the publisher.

But the larger issue is whether a book contract a gray-market bribe, i.e., there's no precise method to measure the value of an expected book, so a publisher may be happy to overpay for a book as a loss leader for more favorable rulings.


* Except SCOTUS.

[chancery]

Yeah, I don't think any of the recent corruption issues involve interests "that could be affected substantially by the outcome of" specific proceedings.

[chancery]

https://twitter.com/jaywillis/status/16 ... 2704838663

Jay Willis
@jaywillis
Your periodic reminder that Clarence Thomas used to smear his own sister as a shiftless, welfare-dependent layabout in speeches to his Heritage Foundation pals, and when reporters tracked her down, his story turned out to be extremely fake

https://greensboro.com/thomas-sister-is ... be433.html

[chancery]

From Paul Campos at the Lawyers Guns & Money Blog

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/20 ... ht-and-day

I understand Scott is going to write about the latest 17 scandals that have broken out about Clarence Thomas, Leonard Leo, et. al., so this post is about something completely different.

Justice Clarence Thomas — who has accepted lavish vacations and other financial benefits from GOP megadonor Harlan Crow for years — said in a speech in 2001 that serving on the Supreme Court wasn’t worth it for what it paid.

“The job is not worth doing for what they pay,” Thomas said during a speech in 2001, The New York Post reported at the time. “The job is not worth doing for the grief. But it is worth doing for the principle.”

Thomas was speaking to the Bar Association in Savannah, Georgia, according to the Post. In the speech, which was resurfaced this week by The Nation writer Jeet Heer, Thomas discussed his efforts to gain custody of his then-10-year-old grandnephew. The Post reported Thomas cried during the speech and thanked his lawyer who worked on the custody battle.

In 2001, the salary for an associate Supreme Court justice was $178,300, while the chief justice made $186,300. As of 2023, the salary for an associate justice is $285,400, while the chief justice makes $298,500.

[Campos is quoting this: https://www.businessinsider.com/clarenc ... pay-2023-5]

Whining resentment about the unfairness of the world is what really binds the American right wing across lines of race, class, gender, etc., and Thomas’s complaint is a true classic of the genre.

Let’s consider what sort of job he has:

(1) Salary is in the 98th percentile for individual income.

(2) Four months of paid vacation every year.

(3) Could have retired 15 years ago with full salary and benefits for life.

(4) Can make unlimited amounts via book contracts that depend on the author’s employment status for approximately 99.87% of their value. Example: Thomas received at least $`1.5 million, plus royalties beyond that figure, for a book he published in 2007.

(5) Can pick up an extra $30K per year for taking lavish fully-paid for vacations, supplied by law schools eager to throw money at SCOTUS justices who “teach a class” for a few hours in some exotic and delightful locale.

(6) Almost all unpleasant aspects of the actual work involved in the job can be delegated to staff.

(7) Can’t be fired, ever.

(8) Spouse will be thrown all sorts of highly paid cushy “jobs.” In addition, she won’t be arrested for trying to overthrow the legitimate government of the United States, because immunity from prosecution for yourself and your spouse is an informal but very real perk of your cozy little employment situation.

(9) Psychic income is very high. Countless people who would otherwise never give you the time of day shamelessly grovel at your feet, solely because of your employment status.

. . . (10) Oops, almost forgot a minor but significant point: Get to impose your crackpot ideology on a nation of 335 million people, whether the majority of them agree with you or not (mostly not).

I’m well aware that absurdly privileged people with highly paid well protected extremely non-strenuous jobs love to whine about how they’re not paid what they’re worth — I’ve been in legal academia for 33 years after all — but even by the standards of this emetic genre Thomas’s whinging stands out.

And of course his preposterous complaining explains why he walks the track for his oh so generous billionaire “friend.” How else is he going to get what he deserves?