ADVERTISEMENT

John Roberts' (SCOTUS Chief Justice) wife

Or, it does. Thomas', and apparently Gorsuch's, alleged integrity issues don't shine poorly on him. He should have no motivation to obfuscate ethical reforms, one would thing the Chief Justice would welcome them.....unless he has motivation otherwise.
The SC is losing all integrity and respect within a small window of time. Pitiful how self serving that group has been exposed to be… Disgusting. Sell outs almost across the board the newbies are….
 
The SC is losing all integrity and respect within a small window of time among a small number of people who seem to be losing cases. Pitiful how self serving that group has been exposed to be… Disgusting. Sell outs almost across the board the newbies are….
Fify
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkland14
It's kind of weird that over the last few days there has been a post on this board about, Clarence Thomas, then Neil Gorsuch and now John Roberts. It's almost like the leftists are trying to destroy the only real American branch of government left. Funny how no posts on the leftists on the count. I know, weird, right?
So you and Goldy are not going to even try to defend it but instead try to blame Democrats. Typical for both of you.
 
It's really kind of funny. Roberts has always presented himself as the "good conservative" on the SC. Now we he's showing up as just as bent as the other 5. It's a den of thieves.
Nasty, disgusting self indulgent assholes, whom we all assumed were out for the public good. The court was presumed to be above the law. Sellouts. Assholes.

Ruth Ginsberg would be pissed.
The SC is exposed as sellouts.
 
Pic of sleazy, unethical wife?
-1x-1.jpg
 
  • Sad
Reactions: ItsinourDNA
Answer: chiefs don’t testify before congress because they are a coequal branch of government. Full stop.
That's weird, members of the executive branch (another coequal branch of government) testify before Congress all the time.

Just because they don't, doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't if the circumstances call for it. and imo, right now, they do.
 
Nasty, disgusting self indulgent assholes, whom we all assumed were out for the public good. The court was presumed to be above the law. Sellouts. Assholes.

Ruth Ginsberg would be pissed.
The SC is exposed as sellouts.
I’m not sure what your point is. ;)
 
That's weird, members of the executive branch (another coequal branch of government) testify before Congress all the time.

Just because they don't, doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't if the circumstances call for it. and imo, right now, they do.

There are procedures to remove the Executive and members of each branch of Congress, unlike SC Justices
 
A few years from now the crazy dude with the yarn on the wall tracing back to the linchpin that lead to the collapse of the US will stop at Roberts. He started it and destroying SCOTUS is the end game
 
It's kind of weird that over the last few days there has been a post on this board about, Clarence Thomas, then Neil Gorsuch and now John Roberts. It's almost like the leftists are trying to destroy the only real American branch of government left. Funny how no posts on the leftists on the count. I know, weird, right?
It does seem like you fascists love your easily corruptible politicians and judges
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torg and HawkMD
Honestly, give it up.

Believe it or not, legal headhunters get paid by law firms on commissions. And handsome commissions at that when it comes to BigLaw. In house legal departments don't need them as much.

Oh, and by the way, I'd love to understand that "firms that had business before the court" qualifier and how it worked.
LOL. Look what's roused the Federalist Society Chatbot from the usual technobabble! What a surprise! How appropriate!

How darest thou commoners question the grift or even dare to comment on it! Now bow and curtsy to your betters! They are better than you! Because they are! Unimpeachable legal logic sayest it's so!

20230405_SCOTUS_ClarenceThomas_03.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Torg
I have to say, I really don’t have an issue with this one. Is Roberts’ wife not allowed to work as a legal recruiter because her husband is a Supreme Court justice?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkedoff
Lol, you think this is only happening with the conservative justices? I shouldn’t have called them but hit jobs but more like selective reporting. Per usual from the drive by media.
The are plenty of right wing media sources out there. Find and post an article from one of them impugning the character and questioning the ethics of one of the liberal justices. TIA.
 
I have to say, I really don’t have an issue with this one. Is Roberts’ wife not allowed to work as a legal recruiter because her husband is a Supreme Court justice?
"Legal Recruiter". LOL. Just doing the regular 9 to 5.

The guy's wife traded on his status to cash in on over $10 million with law firms involved in litigation before the court.

It's just flat-out influence peddling, Corrupt as hell and disgusting. Abe Fortas was hounded off the court 50 years ago for far less. If there are examples of perceived "lib" justices involved in the same type of grifting, eff them as well.
 
"Legal Recruiter". LOL. Just doing the regular 9 to 5.

The guy's wife traded on his status to cash in on over $10 million with law firms involved in litigation before the court.

It's just flat-out influence peddling, Corrupt as hell and disgusting. Abe Fortas was hounded off the court 50 years ago for far less. If there are examples of perceived "lib" justices involved in the same type of grifting, eff them as well.
$1.25 million per year is not an excessive number for a head-hunter for elite law firms. Far from it, actually. At the high end, legal recruiters can bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal commissions on a single placement.

And lol at complaining about someone leveraging a family member’s status for their own personal success. Welcome to America, buddy.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: Torg and hawkedoff
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT