FILE - The Supreme Court is seen on the first day of the new term, in Washington, Oct. 4, 2021.
Roberts pointed to a series of stories recently in The Wall Street Journal that found that “between 2010 and 2018, 131 federal judges participated in a total of 685 matters involving companies in which they or their families owned shares of stock.” Federal judges and Supreme Court justices are required under a federal ethics law to recuse themselves from cases where they have a personal financial interest.
In 2016, Roberts heard arguments in a patent case but discovered after arguments that he held more than 1,200 shares of stock in a parent company of one of the parties. He notified the parties that he would not continue to participate in the case. Roberts did not write about recusals on his own court for financial or other reasons. He did note that in the instances the The Wall Street Journal identified, the paper did not find that any of the conflicts affected the judges' actions in cases. And Roberts underscored that conflicts were identified in “less than three hundredths of one percent of the 2.5 million civil cases filed in the district courts in the nine years included in the study,” a 99.97% compliance rate.
Just look how much congress has made on insider information about the vaccines They really lined their pockets!! So wrong!!
100% agree
People who served the public should not be able to on stock I don't care if you're a congress person or judge this is wrong because you could always have conflict of interest and you know which way they're gonna go on that!!
Yeah well repeal Citizens United because that’s why it’s a shitshow now.
Wow, most democratic nations this is a given !! Wow, but not in the so-called “Leader of the free World” how corrupt 🤷🏽♂️🇳🇿
Says a bought and paid for CJ!
Then what about Justice Thomas whose wife was directly involved in the coup/insurrection plot & assembly? U don't think they talked about J06 prior to & aft that shameful day about Trump/coup/sedition/insurrection the dinner table Mr.Roberts?
MarkHeykaABCFOX then maybe SCOTUS should have a code of ethics like all other federal judges
Duh!
Just financial huh?
My link my details
Fire at South African parliament in Cape Town
🤣
Financial or Religion conflicts.
I concur with CJ, the presumption that the judges are impartial is intellectual dishonesty.
or political conflicts of interest , like Clarence Thomas with his wife Ginnie. That pretty much excludes him from ruling on anything that comes up in at least the next 4 years.
How about Clarence Thomas recusing since his wife was an organizer of the Rally
Well, duh 🙄
Amy Coney Barrett comes to mind
YES! About time! Judges/Politicians with a vested interest never make the right decision. Same is true for your network. Right GStephanopoulos jonkarl ?
Financial Conflicts of Interest? Someone wake this man up from his siesta! 'A solemn mockery!' States can arbitrarily legislate themselves out from under the Supreme Courts control! Warning to every citizen to be aware of these tactics in your state!
That should always be the case !! Its insane to think this isn't already
Same with Congress/Exec. To ensure independence, USA needs independent org (public/pvt partnership financially incentivized to find the graft to pol/family/friends/donors) auditing their (& connections) finances. Consulting firms like Deloitte do it w/ consultants & partners.
No sh*t? Just now saying that? Cardboard cutouts.
How about Congress and their spouses?
Kennedy giving 45 his seat is a prime example. Kennedy was compromised
AHepburn100 Clarence Thomas, if you’re listening…
Wow. Ya think?
Starting with Clarence Thomas?
Financial conflicts also political and religious conflicts of interests. This means you Republican Supremes! Robert’s Legacy, Federalist Society/Republican justices!
Geez, y’a think. Wow, he’s sooo smart.
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: NBCLA - 🏆 319. / 59 Read more »
Source: HuffPostWomen - 🏆 27. / 68 Read more »
Source: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Read more »
Source: WSJ - 🏆 98. / 63 Read more »
Source: AP - 🏆 728. / 51 Read more »
Source: CBS Philly - 🏆 308. / 63 Read more »