I’m fine with every president picking 5 until we reach 100. Still have 9 hear cases. Plaintiffs won’t know the makeup of the court when they file. The overturning of Roe was the last straw for me on respecting the SC.
Pro publica Alito story
- Thread starter St. Louis Hawk
- Start date
Piece on Tuesday in WSJ was by Alito.
Today’s piece by WSJ:
1). Trip in 2006 was ruled not to require reporting by SCOTUS disclosure office.
2). Alito did not know of Singer connection in the 1 of 8 cases the SCOTUS took and ruled on, in a 7-1 ruling.
Nothing burger. Pro publica hatchet job.
Today’s piece by WSJ:
1). Trip in 2006 was ruled not to require reporting by SCOTUS disclosure office.
2). Alito did not know of Singer connection in the 1 of 8 cases the SCOTUS took and ruled on, in a 7-1 ruling.
Nothing burger. Pro publica hatchet job.
LOL - he was the head of the company. Even a cursory review would reveal that. SMFH
Bullshit that Alito didn't know. He would have to be completely incompetent not to.
Alito didn’t know, but Forbes did.
"A Forbes headline said 'Court Hands Billionaire Singer a Victory Over Argentina.' "
"A Forbes headline said 'Court Hands Billionaire Singer a Victory Over Argentina.' "
In Italy and just catching up while gazing out on the Mediterranean; saw you’d tagged me.
If you have an interest with a party, you should recuse, particularly if there’s a reasonable inference to question impartiality.
I get that there’s maybe some fact question here given passage of time, which “should” eventually count for something in terms of whether there is a real appearance of impropriety. The justices can have (and have had) friends. I have no opinion here as to the strength of that inference here, as is this isn’t the week to invest my time on it. But when in doubt, recuse.
But I’ll just assume this means he’s probably writing sfa.
This is relaxing compared to driving the amalfi coast road. By far.
When you have Supreme Court justices routinely lying it’s pretty well ****ed
When it settled at 9, that was to match the number of appellate courts. Today, there are 13. Seems like a simple solution to me. Stagger appointments every two years, current justices would retire in order of seniority on that basis.
Yeah. theyre asking us to believe they did zero research on the case.
There is having friends, and being groomed. The simple question is what other poors were invited as friends on these trips?
@hawkland14
Thoughts? I know, checks notes, Elie Mystal gave you the vapors yesterday, but what about this actual story? Seems like a legal mind like yours would have thoughts if a judge was taking junkets paid for by opposing counsel in a case you worked.
it amazes me that conservatives can go on and on about the deep state and a two tiered justice system with regard to the hunter biden and trump legal woes but then shrug their shoulders and say nothing burger when billionaires are literally caught buying favor with the supreme court.
I can't accept a $40 steak dinner from a pharmaceutical company without it being reported to the feds and I'm a nobody.The fact you didn't know this tells you about all that's necessary about this.
Sotomayor and Gorsuch didn't recuse in cert denials involving their publisher
U.S. Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch failed to recuse themselves when considering cert petitions involving the publisher of their books, Penguin Random House.www.abajournal.com
$10,000 trip 15 years ago funded in part by someone whose association with a case wasn't disclosed in any way - judicial ethics scandal.
$3M income from a direct participant? Nothing to see here.
Alito to the American people: F off, commoners.
From Article III:
"In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
He's just trolling at this point.
"In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
He's just trolling at this point.
Separation of Powers doesn't apply to GOP-controlled courts, bro.
That's in the Bible. Leviticus, I think.
Don’t ask a MAGAt what ethics are or how they should ge used in life and work.
Do I understand correctly that one of the interviewers on the WSJ piece is a lawyer who has a case before the Supreme Court next term?
Your point? Alito will tell you when he has a conflict of interest.
I have my doubts that this was a hard hitting interview, and not just Alito venting with a friendly Rupert owned outlet.
Yeah, just seemed odd to me that a lawyer with business imminently before the court would be interviewing the judge.
All of this is absolutely disgusting and disheartening. Greed and hubris, a bad combo for a Justice.
