Amy Coney Barrett's Husband Is Representing Fox in a Lawsuit
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s husband, Jesse Barrett, is defending Fox Corporation in a defamation case.
www.rollingstone.com
And Amy Barrett joins the ethics fold.
- Thread starter Huey Grey
- Start date
www.rollingstone.com
The other ones you all post I can see where you are going
This is an epic reach. Any spouse of any judge that has a job is going to have things that they do at work that could be twisted into a conflict of interest… hell not working could be twisted into a conflict for the right case.
This is an epic reach. Any spouse of any judge that has a job is going to have things that they do at work that could be twisted into a conflict of interest… hell not working could be twisted into a conflict for the right case.
Yeah, Fox trying to defame the election over and over again to the point where they lost a near billion dollar settlement and then getting represented by a SCOTUS justices spouse gives zero appearance of conflict especially with upcoming rulings that have massive implications for the election.
This should be a huge third wire for her and her husband to be touching.
Someone on MSNBC or CNN used "third wire" today, 💯.
It isn't.
They need to either remove s conservative justice before these bulkshit cases get to the Supreme Court or build a narrative of bias and insurrection when the cases get overturned
I am surprised we haven't had a sexual harassment claim yet.
Remind me, have we done Gorsuch and the Chief yet?
Wake me up on June 30.
Wake me up on June 30.
Would only become an ethics issue if it got appealed to SC.
Meanwhile, the details on that case are a bit stunning, when Barrett is arguing the "details" that Fox defamed the man on were 'immaterial', when in fact they appear to be quite 'material', directly linked to the problems caused by the false reporting.
Question is, did they retract in a reasonable amount of time, and based on what's reported in the story that would seem to be a "no".
Meanwhile, the details on that case are a bit stunning, when Barrett is arguing the "details" that Fox defamed the man on were 'immaterial', when in fact they appear to be quite 'material', directly linked to the problems caused by the false reporting.
Question is, did they retract in a reasonable amount of time, and based on what's reported in the story that would seem to be a "no".
They really are. The poll numbers got them in full panic mode that they(left and msm) will try and make anything a story.
You realize this repeated autistic screeching isn't convincing anyone you're correct? The "everyone i don't like is corrupt, racist, etc" wailing is more than a bit played out. Try and do better. Maybe come back with some substance next time.
It does pose an important question. If a justice’s spouse is contracted by a company that pays them millions of dollars and a case comes before the SC involving that company…what would the justice be ethically bound to do?
i mean...we would if we actually cared about corruption in washington...you can find stuff about an oddly-timed real estate sale related to gorsuch
but we don't really care about corruption...because if we did, we'd make all kinds of things illegal (congressional stock trading, gifts for scotus and legislators, etc)
we only care about using alleged corruption to politically damage candidates
no one in washington (outside a few "true believers") wants to aggressively pursue corruption - and that's especially true of most that are the loudest supposed fighters of corruption
If the spouse's job or contract might be threatened by the legal suit, that's a clear conflict.
If unrelated, then probably not so much, but they'd need to take extra care to minimize any appearance of bias.
oh wait, i forgot we did both. that's right the gorsuch sale of property at fmv, and the chief's wife working as a headhunter and occasionally placing people at firms that have cases at the court. oh well, again, i'm going back to sleep, at least until 10 when they announce opinions.
Which is exactly what SCOTUS isn't doing. One justices spouse took part in 1/6, another supported that coup, and now a third is representing an organization which tried to interfere with the election. Appearance is a huge problem with SCOTUS right now.
i agree its exhausing
particuarly when you have people who scream about a ny criminal judge donating $15 to a candidate as being more corrupt than the guy who sold property to the head of a law firm that has had 20+ cases before the court
by all means...let's dig into to the liberal justices too, though. if they sold property they had been sitting on for 2 years 9 days after they were confirmed to the head of a law firm that was often before the court, i think we should know about it
that isn't unreasonable to me
IIRC, the "FMW" aspect was the issue there. It was land that had been for sale for a long while, and he was not getting the asking price (meaning he was asking too much). Then, suddenly, he got the asking price "out of nowhere".
Liberal justices recuse themselves all the time. You serious with this crap?
Is it ethical to give people HIV or drive drunk?Amy Coney Barrett's Husband Is Representing Fox in a Lawsuit
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s husband, Jesse Barrett, is defending Fox Corporation in a defamation case.
they all recuse...even the conservative justices
my point is that when the american public views corruption as a partisan political tool, we can't be shocked when the legislators do the same thing and never actually adress the corruption
if we don't care about it, they aren't going to
No they don't. Both Thomas and Alito refuse to recuse themselves.
yes they do
you can look up recusals, and they all recuse - some more than others
but don't act like conservative justices NEVER recuse
OK, so against my better judgment but in light of the implication that somehow 'liberals' were somehow 'more' open to recusal practices, I took a look at the Court's order lists for the last two months (a sample, admittedly, but a total of seven of them, covering hundreds of cases). As I suspected, the suggestion is as obviously full of shit as I expected. To wit:
In those two months of cases, there have been three cases involving recusals by 'liberals', one involving Kagan (which I believe may have related to her service as SG), one involving Jackson (which I assume was up from the DC circuit on a panel she sat on) and the other involving all three. That last one is sort of funny in that it was clearly a petition by a crazy person, in that all three of the 'liberal' justices were named as party defendants. So they clearly got that one right. But I suppose if you think about it, if the 'cons' were really as unethical as so many here suggest, they would have granted cert and then ruled against them on whatever the matter involved.
Now, to the 'cons'. Over the course of the two month sample, there have been 14 cases in which 'cons' have recused themselves (Chief x2, Alito x3, Gorsuch x3, Kav x4, and Barrett x2).
Last edited:
I guarantee this is really pissing off Roberts. I may have some political differences with Roberts but the one thing I am assured of is that he has a respect for the court overall. Unfortunately, there isn't much he can do to stop it being a politicized and viewed poorly.
Thank God we have a voice of reason from dead center like you here to hold us tethered to reality.
Appearance of what? How does Barrett's position benefit her husband in the case he's handling?
Oooohhhhh. NRA v. Vullo (1st amendment regulatory retaliation). This is big (unanimous, by Soto) and could have a real effect on how politics are conducted. jackson concurrence foreshadowing murthy.
Damn it! I was going to say last night that they are going after all the justices for political bullshit reasons and Barrett would be next. And here we are! Lol I was too busy fishing and stargazing to post it. Lol
They're not ethically bound to do a damn thing, which is part of the problem. The other part is that 40 million rubes have convinced themselves that those immensely powerful people have the right to secrecy and profit while holding those immensely powerful positions.
Not one person of sound mind thinks a justice's spouse cannot have a career. The issue is the refusal for those justices to be completely transparent in what those career connections are and their refusal to go out of their way to limit the perception of conflict of interest.
Murthy isn't looking good for the government. IMO, standing might have been the biggest hurdle to overcome. I think that's true in many 1A cases because direct harm can be difficult to determine, and individuals and some other entities don't have the resources government agencies have.
She didn’t disclose what her husbands buisness associations. That's not exactly the most effective appearance of integrity.
yeah...if the scotus justices don't want extra scrutiny then they need to adopt rules and policies that at least curb the most blatant examples of conflicts of interest (like free luxury vacations or mortgages being paid off by billionaires with cases before the court)
this doesn't seem like too much to ask
Better yet, if the SCOTUS doesn't want the scrutiny then they need to step aside. They are stewards of an institution that is far more important than themselves and requires a standard of practice far above what they are living.
Indeed. One note about NRA: while the first amendment doesn't apply in private contexts, the NY insurance deputy employed precisely the same business model that corporate general counsels do in pushing down dei to law firms.
