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