![]() ![]() ![]() Nonetheless, Sotomayor’s decision to participate in the Penguin Random House cases was hers alone, in keeping with the court’s historic practice, with no review by the other justices. The federal recusal statute requires disqualification whenever a justice’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” which was surely applicable to a justice who anticipated substantial future income from a party to a case. ![]() Although Sotomayor had no direct financial interest in the outcome of the cases, it should have been obvious that her continuing receipt of royalties from one party could create an appearance of favoritism. Sotomayor’s participation in the Penguin Random House cases - in 2013, 20 - is emblematic of the court’s unacceptable approach to recusal. Taken together, incidents such as these are revealing of a court that, at a minimum, has been less than meticulous about its ethics obligations. ![]() Other revelations are comparatively minor by any definition, such as Justice Neil Gorsuch’s failure to disclose the buyer of his vacation property (it was a lawyer whose firm is often before the court), and Chief Justice Roberts’s inaccurate report of his wife’s compensation from her employer (calling it “salary” rather than commissions from services to law firms). Justice Clarence Thomas’s financial entanglements with billionaire Harlan Crow have also been widely reported, including his decades-long nondisclosure of extravagant gifts and other transactions. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |