(05-08-2023 10:34 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Let's start with this.

All of these laws that pertian to the conduct of SCOTUS judges ALSO applies to Congress and their charges... People who ALSO become incredibly wealthy as 'public servants'.

The biggest differences between the two are significant... among them
scotus rulings and votes are fairly transparent, and there aren't many 'procedural' ways of getting around someone's vote... like somehow not allowing them to bring an amendment to the floor etc etc... A majority of course can decline to hear a case, but unlike bills, it is sometimes as important to hear a case and 'affirm' it as it is to 'deny' it. They do not control the cases that come to them... and a decision to 'not' hear a case is a decision to let another court's ruling stand. You also can't easily give a judge $1mm for their district and get them to abstain or recuse themselves, or change their vote. You can't really 'swap' their vote on one case for another. Also, the makeup of the court certainly can change over time, but not nearly as much or as quickly as say Congress... certainly not in a reliable way.

The issues isn't, did they become wealthy while being public servants... RBG became wealthy... has had dozens of buildings and scholarships named for her etc etc etc... took many nice trips... gave many speeches for tens of thousands of dollars etc etc...

The issue is... did their pirsuit of wealth conflict with justice. Did any votes change... were any decisions influenced as a result of it. Was justice blind, or was it bought?

THAT is what matters, and it is ALL that matters.

Regarding Thomas, there is almost no way to argue that his friendship with Harlan Crow has influenced any decision. No decision can be pointed to that has a direct connection to Crow, or anything from which he might personally profit.

Regarding Gorsuch... there is a slight connection.... as in someone whose firm regularly argues before the court bought a home from him... but nobody alleges that the home was 'over-valued'... meaning there is no benefit to Gorsuch from which a conflict might arise.

Regarding Sotomayor, there is more of a connection... STILL probably nothing.... but more.
RBG was close with the ACLU and millions were given to organizations in her name or at her direction.... still probably nothing... probably about as much as Gorsuch... but vastly more than Thomas.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having wealthy friends... and stupidly wealthy people don't care about money... nor is there anything wrong with getting $50,000 for delivering a speech or commencement address... because of a position that you have earned.... even if you do it 10 times a year, as long as you're still doing your job. The problem comes in when you are getting paid based on HOW you do your job... as in if you want this money, you have to vote how we want you to.

There is absolutely NO evidence whatsoever of any of that.... by any of them

Again, Ham... if Crow has any influence on Thomas is would likely be the scenario where he reviews a case and (against the grain) decides that he is going to side with the liberal justices on this one. He is reluctant to do that given how is benefactors might respond and therefore he, as usual, sides with the conservative justices.

Not that I am saying that has happened, but if there was any inkling of this type of influence it would be impossible to prove.

One reason that conflict of interest policies are put in place is to discourage this sort of invisible influence.