Tue Jan 31, 2023, 06:21 PM
demmiblue (35,459 posts)
At the Supreme Court, Ethics Questions Over a Spouse's Business Ties
Source: NYT
The chief justice’s wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, has made millions in her career recruiting lawyers to prominent law firms, some of which have business before the court. Now, a letter sent to Congress claims that may present a conflict of interest. After Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined the Supreme Court, his wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, gave up her career as a law firm partner to become a high-end legal recruiter in an effort to alleviate potential conflicts of interest. Mrs. Roberts later recalled in an interview that her husband’s job made it “awkward to be practicing law in the firm.” Now, a former colleague of Mrs. Roberts has raised concerns that her recruiting work poses potential ethics issues for the chief justice. Seeking an inquiry, the ex-colleague has provided records to the Justice Department and Congress indicating Mrs. Roberts has been paid millions of dollars in commissions for placing lawyers at firms — some of which have business before the Supreme Court, according to a letter obtained by The New York Times. In his letter last month, Kendal Price, a 66-year-old Boston lawyer, argued that the justices should be required to disclose more information about their spouses’ work. He did not cite specific Supreme Court decisions, but said he was worried that a financial relationship with law firms arguing before the court could affect justices’ impartiality or at least give the appearance of doing so. “I do believe that litigants in U.S. courts, and especially the Supreme Court, deserve to know if their judges’ households are receiving six-figure payments from the law firms,” Mr. Price wrote. Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/31/us/john-roberts-jane-sullivan-roberts.html
|
20 replies, 2283 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
demmiblue | Jan 31 | OP |
in2herbs | Jan 31 | #1 | |
ificandream | Jan 31 | #2 | |
NullTuples | Jan 31 | #6 | |
mopinko | Jan 31 | #3 | |
Peregrine Took | Jan 31 | #4 | |
Joinfortmill | Jan 31 | #14 | |
Lonestarblue | Jan 31 | #5 | |
gibraltar72 | Jan 31 | #7 | |
Rebl2 | Jan 31 | #9 | |
Marthe48 | Jan 31 | #11 | |
wnylib | Jan 31 | #12 | |
J_William_Ryan | Jan 31 | #8 | |
ananda | Jan 31 | #10 | |
Joinfortmill | Jan 31 | #13 | |
republianmushroom | Jan 31 | #15 | |
dalton99a | Jan 31 | #16 | |
Farmer-Rick | Jan 31 | #17 | |
COL Mustard | Jan 31 | #18 | |
SouthernDem4ever | Jan 31 | #19 | |
machoneman | Feb 1 | #20 |
Response to demmiblue (Original post)
Tue Jan 31, 2023, 06:37 PM
in2herbs (2,829 posts)
1. In Nov/Dec Congress voted to exclude income of spouses in disclosure information that
justices file. So, I don't see this ethics question going anywhere ----- until Biden expands the USSC and a revised Code of Ethics is passed and complied with by all justices.
|
Response to demmiblue (Original post)
Tue Jan 31, 2023, 06:43 PM
ificandream (4,375 posts)
2. What about Ginni Thomas?
Response to ificandream (Reply #2)
Tue Jan 31, 2023, 07:06 PM
NullTuples (5,199 posts)
6. And Jesse Barrett, too...
"A year after Amy Coney Barrett joined the Supreme Court, the boutique Indiana firm SouthBank Legal opened its first-ever Washington office in Penn Quarter, a move the firm hailed in a 2021 press release as an “important milestone.” https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/29/justices-spouses-conflict-of-interest-disclosures-00059549 |
Response to demmiblue (Original post)
Tue Jan 31, 2023, 06:51 PM
mopinko (66,543 posts)
3. muddying the waters r we nyt?
Response to demmiblue (Original post)
Tue Jan 31, 2023, 06:58 PM
Peregrine Took (7,297 posts)
4. When will they have enough...."when does the greed stop??" (Ted Kennedy) n/t
Response to Peregrine Took (Reply #4)
Tue Jan 31, 2023, 09:18 PM
Joinfortmill (10,747 posts)
14. Never, it's an ever growing beast.
Response to demmiblue (Original post)
Tue Jan 31, 2023, 07:05 PM
Lonestarblue (7,385 posts)
5. Now imagine Michelle Obama, also a lawyer, doing exactly the same as Roberts' wife when she was
First Lady. Then uproar from Republicans would have been heard in Russia. Michelle chose not to practice law during her years in the WH to avoid conflict. I’m sure she too could have earned millions, but she has ethics. Republicans assume they can get away with any behavior because they generally do.
|
Response to demmiblue (Original post)
Tue Jan 31, 2023, 07:06 PM
gibraltar72 (7,122 posts)
7. Ethics are not a concern on US Supreme Court!!
Response to gibraltar72 (Reply #7)
Tue Jan 31, 2023, 07:16 PM
Rebl2 (10,359 posts)
9. No it is not
Ethics is generally not a concern for any republican from what I see.
|
Response to gibraltar72 (Reply #7)
Tue Jan 31, 2023, 07:21 PM
Marthe48 (12,329 posts)
11. Ethics are not a concern for the despotic majority
If a single one of the unelected, lying, bought and paid for majority of the (formerly) supreme court of the U.S. had a scintilla of ethics, they would never had accepted the seat. But not a single one of the unelected despots have a shred of decency, and they belonged to the puppetmasters before they even thought they'd attain the bench they've pulled to the ground.
Rany over. |
Response to Marthe48 (Reply #11)
Tue Jan 31, 2023, 09:04 PM
wnylib (17,351 posts)
12. The word is just not in their vocabulary.
Response to demmiblue (Original post)
Tue Jan 31, 2023, 07:13 PM
J_William_Ryan (1,510 posts)
8. "Ethics are not a concern on US Supreme Court!!"
Not this conservative Court, no.
|
Response to demmiblue (Original post)
Tue Jan 31, 2023, 07:21 PM
ananda (27,569 posts)
10. The word ethics means nothing to the righties on SCOTUS.
It might as well be aardvark.
|
Response to demmiblue (Original post)
Tue Jan 31, 2023, 09:17 PM
Joinfortmill (10,747 posts)
13. Disgusting. Joe needs to expand the SCOTUS whether he likes it much or not.
They're not giving him much choice.
|
Response to demmiblue (Original post)
Tue Jan 31, 2023, 09:22 PM
republianmushroom (5,871 posts)
15. Ethics (?) Roberts court. OK I'll bite, what ethics.
Response to demmiblue (Original post)
Tue Jan 31, 2023, 10:51 PM
Farmer-Rick (8,403 posts)
17. Justices are required to disclose their spouses' employer and income
What they get away without disclosing is the clients the justice's spouses work with and who pays the employer of the spouses.
Mrs Roberts is bringing in tons of money in placing lawyers who appear before her husband. But all Roberts has to reveal is the recruiting firm and what they pay her. He gets away with hiding the money clients may "tip" his wife or money clients pay the firm. Slave wife Amy and of course the Thomas's also play this hidden bribery game. This might explain the spouse disclosure loophole better: "Under the Ethics in Government Act, federal judges and justices currently only need to list their spouse’s employer—not their clients or amount of compensation they received. That “means a judicial spouse could earn untold sums, via legal or consulting work, from entities that have cases before their husband or wife, and the public would be none the wiser, so long as the entities paid their employer and not the spouse directly." https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/watchdogs-want-judicial-spouse-disclosure-loophole-closed |
Response to demmiblue (Original post)
Tue Jan 31, 2023, 10:57 PM
COL Mustard (4,657 posts)
18. If there's a conflict of interest, they *should* recuse themselves.
But I doubt there's a rule that requires them to, and there's no real punishment if they don't. The only thing it does is cheapen the Court in the eyes of the American people, and I think that horse may have already left the barn.
|
Response to demmiblue (Original post)
Tue Jan 31, 2023, 11:38 PM
SouthernDem4ever (2,556 posts)
19. What do you expect from a fascist run SCOTUS
They have no set ethics and when they are caught pushing the limits they pretend like it's nothing. Typical repuglicans.
|
Response to demmiblue (Original post)
Wed Feb 1, 2023, 07:42 AM
machoneman (3,429 posts)
20. This IS big news! First we all heard of it. Why didn't the media pickup on this long ago?
Amazing corruption by of all things the senior SC's justices wife!
|