SCOTUS needs full complement of justices, fully focused on the law, not their own bottom lines

[dajoki]

Courting Conflict
Published: June 14, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/opinion/14sat2.html?th&emc=th

Judges must be impartial — in both appearance and reality — so federal law sensibly requires that they disqualify themselves from cases if they own stock in a company that is a party in the matter. It would be best if all judges ordered their investments to avoid conflicts. But the issue is most acute for Supreme Court justices, who cannot be replaced by another jurist. When Supreme Court justices recuse themselves, they risk altering important decisions and blocking the court from doing its job.

So it is dismaying to find that some sitting justices continue to own stocks. Financial disclosure forms released this month show that the worst offender is Justice Stephen Breyer, who retains shares in more than three dozen companies. Chief Justice John Roberts holds stocks in 16, and Justice Samuel Alito owns stocks in 5.

Their holdings are clearly affecting the court’s work. In a major embarrassment last month, the court could not muster the quorum of six justices needed to decide whether to hear a high-profile appeal brought by more than 50 companies that did business in apartheid-era South Africa.

Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito and Breyer were prevented from sitting because of their stock holdings. Justice Anthony Kennedy couldn’t because he has a son who works for one of the companies.

In March, the chief justice’s stake in Pfizer forced his recusal from a dispute over patient lawsuits against drug makers. The outcome was a 4-to-4 tie....

[LiberalFighter]

1. Legislation needs to be passed to require that their investments...

be put into a blind trust. If they refuse then they be removed from office.

[sharesunited]

2. Some of them had to recuse themselves from the "Fantasy Baseball" case

because they happen to play fantasy baseball.

[dajoki]

3. They also need to recuse themselves from 2008 Presidential election n/t

[ladjf]

4. What America "needs" and what America gets are two different things.

Why is that? How is it that the Government is doing everything possible to harm the interests of most Americans? How did we elect such bad people? How can this situation be rectified?

[kentuck]

5. We need a really strong hardball liberal on the Court...

Someone that will not be intimidated by the little punk, Scalia.

[dsc]

6. then they need to be paid more

they currently make less than associates at many blue chip firms. I know that there is prestige etc but still that is a bit much.

[dajoki]

7. I disagree...

Nearly ALL elected and appointed officials in government, from local to national, could make a heck of a lot more money doing something else, yet they fight like mad to get those jobs. They know the pay before they decide to throw their names in the running. There are a lot of benefits that come with such power!!

[dsc]

8. but people who aren't already rich can't do it

which is the problem. I know that salary isn't the sole reason there are so many millionaires in the Senate and on the Court but it is surely one of the reasons. Only people who are already rich can take the pay cut necessary to be in government.