Discussion
  • Read More
    PeppermintMichelle Dean
    4/28/14 11:10am

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28…

    The law on this, is anyone is curious.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Michelle DeanPeppermint
      4/28/14 11:16am

      It's linked in the post too! But here's the key part:

      A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      he7788Michelle Dean
      4/28/14 4:14pm

      I find it highly unusual that a single individual would own $100k in stock in a single company. That is an extremely risky investment approach.

      That does not sound like he had a bunch of money in a market fund.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Go HawkeyesMichelle Dean
    4/28/14 11:24am

    I know this seems bad, and it really is, but I don't think most people will truly understand it. I agree, these judges shouldn't be handling a case when they have any involvement in one of the sides. But it isn't always that easy to know what you are invested in. In my case it's rather easy. I'm not rich and I mostly handle my own investments with the guidance of a financial adviser every once in a while. But my dad is rather well off. He has an adviser to handle his finances full time. I've talked to my dad about investments before and he said that unless he checked with his adviser he doesn't actually know what all he is invested in on any given day. And I'm sure these judges are even better off financially so that would only serve to compound the problem.

    Still, I agree that something should be done to keep these situations from happening.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ARP2Go Hawkeyes
      4/28/14 11:34am

      No, an excuse should not be "it's hard." They should either stay on it, or put their money into a blind trust like many presidents do.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      ChunkLovesSlothGo Hawkeyes
      4/28/14 1:00pm

      Oh this is bullshit on so many levels. Investors are provided reports and know full well what is going on with individual positions. And if they don't, the onus is entirely on them. Ignorance is not an excuse. And putting themselves in that situation to begin with is terrible.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    e.nonMichelle Dean
    4/28/14 11:13am

    rule of law..... pffft.. that's for peasants. you know.... kinda like how members of congress can engage in insider trading (one of the many perks of the 'job') while your ass will be brought up on federal charges..

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      raincoasterMichelle Dean
      4/28/14 5:08pm

      And then there is the case, not listed here, where the judge presiding over the trial of a hacker was married to one of the victims of the hack. It was sent before a judge to decide if she was compromised and should recuse herself from the case. The judge who made that call? Loretta Preska, wife to a victim of the Stratfor hack, presiding over the case of Jeremy Hammond, and, yes, deciding whether she was compromised or not. Unsurprisingly, she decided she was awesome and in no way influenced by being married to the victim of the man whose future she was deciding. Seeing how things were going to go, Hammond recently reached a plea deal and is serving ten years.

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        EasttoMidwestMichelle Dean
        4/28/14 1:19pm

        Every so often, at work, I get a legally binding form where I have to declare that I, nor anyone close to me, owns more than a handful of shares of a particular company. Then I also have to sign off that I have no relationship whatsoever with a list of people, officers and significant shareholders of that company. And — and — we're not not supposed to be partial in any legal proceedings. Granted, most of these are for advance knowledge of an upcoming merger, but I don't understand why judges don't have to go through this process.

        Reply
        <
        • Read More
          kristinbytesMichelle Dean
          4/28/14 11:20am

          Just following the lead of the Supreme Court - http://www.afj.org/wp-content/upl….

          In 2003, a prominent legal ethicist argued that Justice Breyer should have recused himself from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. Walsh ,16 in which an association of drug manufacturers, including three in which Justice Breyer held stock, brought suit challenging the constitutionality of state regulations aimed at keeping drug costs down for consumers. Some legal ethicists criticized Justice Breyer‟s decision not to recuse himself, despite his potential financial conflict of interest.17

           In 2004, just weeks after the Supreme Court granted certiorari in a public records case brought by the Sierra Club against then-Vice President Dick Cheney, Justice Scalia went duck hunting with Cheney and accepted a free ride on the Vice President‟ plane. Despite widespread public criticism questioning his appearance of bias in the case, Justice Scalia refused to recuse himself.18 In a memorandum opinion denying the Sierra Club‟ motion to recuse, Justice Scalia wrote that he "would have been pleased to demonstrate [his] integrity" by disqualifying himself from the case, but nonetheless decided there was no basis for recusal.19 He then cast his vote in support of Vice President Cheney‟ position.20

          ï‚· In 2011, the advocacy organization Common Cause filed a petition with the Department of Justice, requesting that it file a Rule 60(b) motion seeking the invalidation of last year‟ Citizens United v. FEC ruling on the basis that Justices Scalia and Thomas should have recused themselves.21 The petition alleged the impartiality of both justices could reasonably be questioned under 18 U.S.C. § 455(a) due to their attendance at a closed-door retreat hosted by Koch Industries, a politically active corporation that supported and has benefited from Citizen United‟ dismantling of campaign finance laws. 22 Common Cause also alleges that Justice Thomas had an obligation to recuse

          Edited to fix formatting - I hope - because nuKinja

          Reply
          <
          • Read More
            ARP2kristinbytes
            4/28/14 11:28am

            You forgot that Thomas' wife is a member of a political group that advocated overturning ACA and submitted an amicus brief.

            Reply
            <
        • Read More
          RobertleHeadMichelle Dean
          4/28/14 11:11am

          The public feels righteously cynical about all of it, and everyone despairs about the alleged impartiality of Lady Justice in America once again.

          Thanks for that. I wasn't quite sure how to feel after reading the substance of the article.

          Reply
          <