I've been posting a bunch about the ethical issues popping up with the Supreme Court Justices recently. From Ginni Thomas to Harlan Crow and so on. Some of these issues are real concerns, especially Ginni Thomas' role in January 6.
One issue, though, that I expressed skepticism about last week was Chief Justice Roberts' wife being employed as a legal recruiter. The more I think about it, the more I don't get the uproar. She is a lawyer who left her law job because she did not want the appearance of impropriety. And now she is working as a legal recruiter. She should not have to step away from her job.
Here are two articles saying Jane Roberts' job is a nothingburger (Above the Law and Bloomberg).
Interested in your thoughts.
4 comments:
Good point, there is a difference. Roberts deserves his own blame for the justices scoffing at the reporting requirements. At a time when they have also used their radical right-wing personal preferences to strip established jurisprudence and fundamental rights. Also when the fascist rabble has just barely been turned back from the gates of civilization. And Alito emulating Marie Antoinette.
Agreed.
Roberts - nothing burger.
Gorsuch - nothing burger.
Sotomayor -she should had have recused on any case involviong a publsiher who has paid her millions.
Thomas - hot mess.
Alito - stop cyring about being criticized.
1.22 is right on each.
Ch Justice Roberts, one hopes, has had words with J Thomas, evidently with no or very little luck. If so, that is J Thomas's error, and it will cause him and his fellow justices more trouble down the line.
I'm not quite sure the ethical issue with CJ Roberts's wife's employment is "fake." It's an actual ethical issue that all public officials and their families face. People who want access may be willing to do anything to get it. But she's entitled to earn a living and work in her field. And until there's evidence to the contrary she should be presumed to be acting in good faith.
Post a Comment