Justices shield spouses' work from potential conflict of interest disclosures

[LetMyPeopleVote]

This lady is unethical

Link to tweet

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/29/justices-spouses-conflict-of-interest-disclosures-00059549

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.”

The head of the office, Jesse M. Barrett, is the justice’s husband, whose work is described by the firm as “white-collar criminal defense, internal investigations, and complex commercial litigation.”

But if anyone wants to find out whether Jesse Barrett’s clients have a direct interest in cases being decided by his wife, they’re out of luck. In the Supreme Court’s notoriously porous ethical disclosure system, Barrett not only withholds her husband’s clients, but redacted the name of SouthBank Legal itself in her most recent disclosure.

Over the past year, Virginia Thomas, known as Ginni, has gotten significant attention for operating a consulting business that reportedly includes conservative activist groups with interest in Supreme Court decisions as clients. Her husband, Justice Clarence Thomas, has chosen not to reveal any of his wife’s clients, let alone how much they contributed to the Thomas family coffers, dating back to when her consulting business was founded.

[Lovie777]

1. Ginni Thomas . . ..

UGH

[LetMyPeopleVote]

11. I agree

Link to tweet

[gratuitous]

2. We seriously need some judicial reform

The days are long gone when a Supreme Court Justice could be counted on to act with the utmost integrity and ethics beyond reproach.

[jaxexpat]

13. At least since 2000 or so.

How has so much power to screw up the future so thoroughly been so concentrated in one body?

[Scrivener7]

3. And what will be the penalties to Amy the Handmaid and Clarence the silent?

None, I bet.

[Dustlawyer]

4. This is just wrong on so many levels.

[ColinC]

5. If we can't impeach them, can we at least change their titles?

"Injustices" is far more fitting for the likes of Barrett and Thomas

[Solly Mack]

6. Yeah, right. No reasons to question the integrity of the court. So says Alito.

Snort.

[justhanginon]

7. Anyone appointed to the judiciary by Trump shoud be called a "Trudge" so as

to distinguish them from actually qualified judges. Be nice to know who is who in what's left of our corrupted judicial system.

[Sky Jewels]

8. The six fascist SCOTUS justices have implemented a reign of terror.

They must be stopped.

[onecaliberal]

9. We have allowed the monied interest to buy everything and everyone. We are just fucked.

[Cha]

10. Most of the SCOTUS is are Corrupt

Pieces of LYING SHITE.

[Irish_Dem]

19. Yep.

[hadEnuf]

12. These GOP appointed scum are not there for Americans in the least and they never intended to be.

They are there to interpret and exploit every single loophole in United States law to secure more power for the Republican Right Wing.

A lot of us started to figure that out when Thomas was confirmed and really got it when Roberts and Alito showed up. Now the majority of the court is saturated with this type of vermin. But Dems were very fair in their considerations, as always, while these judges lied their asses off so here we are.

Time to wake up and expand the court to dilute these extremists before we really regret it.

[Lonestarblue]

14. Utter power corrupts, and that's what we have with the extremists on the SC.

If democrats do not find a way to expand the Court, we will soon be a theocracy with a permanent Republican authoritarian government with few ways to undo it.

[Samrob]

15. I'll say it again. Time to expand the Court and pass some enforced legislation. nt

[Blue Owl]

16. When criminal scum like tRump are appointing 3 SCOTUS judges, the system is fucked

[LetMyPeopleVote]

17. At least four Supreme Court justices' spouses' do outside work,

Link to tweet

[onenote]

18. This isn't exactly a new thing.

Indeed, RBG's husband was a noted tax attorney in private practice while she was on the Supreme Court.
In 1993, seven justices signed onto a recusal policy addressing situations arising because they had a spouse, child or other relative who was or may become an attorney. It's pretty narrow.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000183-8648-d513-a19b-9fdc5acd0000

[Hermit-The-Prog]

20. Congress has the power to check the Judiciary, but we have to have Congress first.

Roe, Roe, Roe your vote
against theocracy!
Republicans revoke your rights
and kill democracy!

THESE are the races that will determine control of the House of Representatives:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217192221

Stick 'em up for a blue wave: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217078977