Supreme Court rules do not prevent justices from engaging in financial transactions with people with interest in court decisions, but Gorsuchâs dealings with Duffy expose the weakness of the courtâs disclosure procedures. For instance, in reporting his Colorado income, Gorsuch listed as his source only the name that he and his two co-owners gave themselves, Walden Group, LLC. The report didnât indicate that there had been a real estate sale or a purchaser.
Such a sale would raise ethical problems for officials serving in many other branches of government, but the Supreme Court sets its own rules. It has largely left justices to make their own decisions about when and how to report outside gifts and income.
The Supreme Court justice did not report the identity of the purchaser, whose firm has had numerous cases before the court.
For nearly two years beginning in 2015, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch sought a buyer for a 40-acre tract of property he co-owned in rural Granby, Colo.
Nine days after he was confirmed by the Senate for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, the then-circuit court judge got one: The chief executive of Greenberg Traurig, one of the nationâs biggest law firms with a robust practice before the high court. Gorsuch owned the property with two other individuals.
On April 16 of 2017, Greenbergâs Brian Duffy put under contract the 3,000-square foot log home on the Colorado River and nestled in the mountains northwest of Denver, according to real estate records.
Gorsuch did not disclose the identity of the purchaser. That box was left blank.
Since then, Greenberg Traurig has been involved in at least 22 cases before or presented to the court, according to a POLITICO review of the courtâs docket.
They include cases in which Greenberg either filed amicus briefs or represented parties. In the 12 cases where Gorsuchâs opinion is recorded, he sided with Greenberg Traurig clients eight times and against them four times.
Gorsuch joined the courtâs other five conservative judges in agreeing with the plaintiffs â including Greenbergâs client â that the Environmental Protection Agency had overstepped its authority by regulating carbon emissions from power plants in the decision that makes it more difficult for the executive branch to regulate emissions without express authorization from Congress.
...
Supreme Court rules do not prevent justices from engaging in financial transactions with people with interest in court decisions, but Gorsuchâs dealings with Duffy expose the weakness of the courtâs disclosure procedures. For instance, in reporting his Colorado income, Gorsuch listed as his source only the name that he and his two co-owners gave themselves, Walden Group, LLC. The report didnât indicate that there had been a real estate sale or a purchaser.
Such a sale would raise ethical problems for officials serving in many other branches of government, but the Supreme Court sets its own rules. It has largely left justices to make their own decisions about when and how to report outside gifts and income.
Itâs true that another way of looking at this is âpromises kept.â But it was a racist, sexist promise to start.
âIf I have a chance to put another judge on the Supreme Court, I promise to look at everyone from all perspectives: gender, race, training, geography, and more. â
There are highly qualified candidates from all genders, race etc. etc. I don't think that it's so racist and sexist to say that you will pick from a pool of highly qualified candidates that has been continually ignored for decades since the first woman & first black man were nominated and confirmed to the Court. It's a logical progression. Contrary to what some people are willing to accept we are a diverse country and our government "by and for the people" should reflect that.
âOf course heâs upset. Think about it. For almost all of American
history, the entire Supreme Court was white dudes with bow ties and
weird hair. Now thatâs all gone. Itâs all gone. Whereâs Tuckerâs representation, huh?â
The frustrating part to me is that people are pressuring Biden to fulfill a promise he (shouldn't have) made: put a black woman in the seat. Now this doesn't bug me because I'm racist or sexist - but it bugs me because that's exactly what that promise is. It's racist and sexist to choose someone based on race or sex.
It shouldn't have been done before, resulting in a lot of white people on the court, and it shouldn't be done now in some weird version of tit-for-tat.
The answer to racism and sexism isn't more racism and sexism.
Trump promised to put a woman on the court and it didn't draw ire.... Didn't Reagan say this as well? It's hard to get 9 people to properly represent 300million, but having it be an exclusively white male group was problematic. I don't see a problem with trying to make it a bit more diverse. We'll never have true representation (some one actually poor, or who doesn't have connections), but we could do better.
I'm more concerned that Trump (and most recent repubs) promised to put someone from a list provided by the Federalist Society. Exactly why does this particular group with no public accountability get to pick justices?
The deepest downside in this specific case will be that no matter how spectacular the pick turns out, it will always be considered in the context of "the promise." She "didn't get the seat because of her exemplary qualifications, she got it because he painted himself into a corner and he had to choose from a shorter list" sort of thing.
And that's what gives the ammunition to the conservatives to say "bussing and quotas and affirmative action are wrong."
The deepest downside in this specific case will be that no matter how spectacular the pick turns out, it will always be considered in the context of "the promise." She "didn't get the seat because of her exemplary qualifications, she got it because he painted himself into a corner and he had to choose from a shorter list" sort of thing.
The frustrating part to me is that people are pressuring Biden to fulfill a promise he (shouldn't have) made: put a black woman in the seat. Now this doesn't bug me because I'm racist or sexist - but it bugs me because that's exactly what that promise is. It's racist and sexist to choose someone based on race or sex.
It shouldn't have been done before, resulting in a lot of white people on the court, and it shouldn't be done now in some weird version of tit-for-tat.
The answer to racism and sexism isn't more racism and sexism.
The deepest downside in this specific case will be that no matter how spectacular the pick turns out, it will always be considered in the context of "the promise." She "didn't get the seat because of her exemplary qualifications, she got it because he painted himself into a corner and he had to choose from a shorter list" sort of thing.
WASHINGTON, D.C.âWith the announcement of Associate Justice Stephen Breyerâs pending retirement dominating the current news cycle, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has put forth the following statement: âThe American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.â
When it was pointed out to Senator McConnell that these were the exact same words he used in 2016 on the day of Antonnin Scaliaâs death, McConnell explained, âYes, and the same principle still applies. We should not have a lame-duck president who is clearly on his way out making such an important decision for the nation.â
Yeah, he had already said this a while back. Mitch is a complete piece of shit.
WASHINGTON, D.C.—With the announcement of Associate Justice Stephen Breyer’s pending retirement dominating the current news cycle, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has put forth the following statement: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
When it was pointed out to Senator McConnell that these were the exact same words he used in 2016 on the day of Antonnin Scalia’s death, McConnell explained, “Yes, and the same principle still applies. We should not have a lame-duck president who is clearly on his way out making such an important decision for the nation.”
The frustrating part to me is that people are pressuring Biden to fulfill a promise he (shouldn't have) made: put a black woman in the seat. Now this doesn't bug me because I'm racist or sexist - but it bugs me because that's exactly what that promise is. It's racist and sexist to choose someone based on race or sex. It shouldn't have been done before, resulting in a lot of white people on the court, and it shouldn't be done now in some weird version of tit-for-tat.
The answer to racism and sexism isn't more racism and sexism.
shoes be droppin ...
