Sotomayor's wealth has skyrocketed since joining Supreme Court, raising ethics concerns

It’s something how the leadership of Progressives, Socialists, and Communists always knock others from accumulating wealth from others, but they always except themselves. It’s funny how it works like that.

Sadly, it does seem that way. We need to Drain the Swamp.

SFC (Join to see) Not at all true.

Your example is your responsibilities WITHIN THAT AGREEMENT transferring.

If you also went drunk driving and injured someone on your own time, that company is not liable for your actions they would be if you were drunk driving on the clock.

When she show up as Sonia Sotomayor, author, she is operating independently of Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court Justice.

Yes, she still has responsibilities to maintain decorum and respectability, to not "discredit the robe." But she is not operating as a Justice.

SFC Casey O'Mally - What can I say? You refuse to admit professionals have any responsibility greater than the public does, that parties don’t have written and implied responsibilities to one another depending on their roles in society.

In a case like this I fall back on the phrase that applies to all professionals “the appearance of conflict”, defined by: Appearance of a conflict of interest means the impression that a reasonable person might have, after full disclosure of the facts, that an Appointee 's judgment might be significantly influenced by outside interests, even though there may be no actual Conflict of Interest. This is a real responsibility of professionals.
If you can’t see it after this, I will have to just agree to disagree. :)

SFC (Join to see)
Yes, professionals have a greater responsibility IN THEIR PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY. As a government employee, I can get fired for getting a single speeding ticket for 1 MPH over "on duty." I can also be fired for dishonesty (even "legal" dishonesty) on or off duty. But my position does not prevent me from engaging in "legal" dishonesty. My position does not make it a crime to lie to my wife, to tell women at the bar I am divorced, or to tell "no shit, there I was" stories. If I am caught doing those things, it *may* affect whether I keep my job.


You are conflating two different issues.

Issue 1) Legality of publisher requiring book purchases, from which she benefits.

Issue 2) Conflict of interest as a Justice.

In Issue 1, her role as a Justice is irrelevant. Her being a Justice makes those purchase requirements no more or less legal. In the terms of this issue, she is operating solely as an author.

In Issue 2, her role as a Justice is paramount. In this issue, her role as an author impacts her role as a Justice. In this issue, there arises, or may arise, a conflict of interest when hearing cases that impact her role as author. In these cases she should recuse herself, or she must justify why the conflict does not exist. There have been questionable ethics in this area to date; however, this has been attributed, both by Sotomayor and by the official statement of SCOTUS, to procedural error and honest ignorance. It has also been addressed procedurally to ensure no future occurrences.

But in neither Issue 1 nor Issue 2 does her role as Justice prevent her from taking actions as an author. She is, however, responsible for those actions, and how they impact her ability to perform her function as a Justice.

You are saying that because she is a Justice, she *can't* do things other people can. I am saying she *can* do those things, but *if* she does them, it may affect her role as a Justice.

And her publisher requiring book purchases is neither - unless and until either her publisher is an affected party to a case, in which case, the publisher requiring purchases is irrelevant. Or if one of the people/businesses required to purchase her books has a case, in which case it is still likely irrelevant,unless the case is about her book and/or being required to purchase it.

Bottom line here is that conservatives don't like her and are taking every opportunity to throw dirt that they can. Many see this as "payback" for the liberal treatment of Thomas. But you will notice no one is coming after Coney Barrett or Gorsuch, despite the same basic issues.

It isn't about what she did, it is about who she is. If this were Kavanaugh, Fox would make nary a peep.

SFC Casey O'Mally - First let me say I don’t care about Sotomayor one way or another, if it’s her or Gorsuch I just don’t care. Decisions are decisions and whether we agree with them or not they must be followed. That being said, sometimes the court does get it wrong. I won’t dwell on it.

It appears you don’t distinguish between being a government employee and a professional. I am both. There were codes of conduct that I needed to abide by for Pennsylvania and the Federal Government that went along with my annual earnings/holding’s statements. There are sperate standards I took an oath to when I because a professional engineer.

Driving drunk and speeding are two specific actions that can be separated into on and off duty, that's why you picked them. There are very many times when we can’t separate on and off duty situations. If you work for OSMRE or use their funding, you can’t own any mining stock, if your on duty or not. If you are a professional that has the authority to have your “judgement” accepted “as fact” in a court of law, you are really never off duty because your statement can be used as a basis of fact. Of course, this is just for your professional knowledge.

Article Quote: “For example, judicial ethics guidance suggests that a judge may sign copies of his or her work, which may also be available for sale, but there should be no requirement or suggestion that attendees are required to purchase books in order to attend."”
You say the publisher effectively had minimum sale requirements, but it doesn’t say that in the article, or any credible place I’ve read. Even if the publisher had minimum sale requirements, by being a professional Sotomayor should have stopped the requirement or go on the next publisher who has ethics.

I guess the only question we need to ask ourselves is did Sotomayor make any money from the publisher’s actions. If she did, she could be guilty of extortion… The “Cash for Kids Scandal” was big in our area where a judge sent juvenile offenders to an institution where he received financial consideration. I’m sure his agreement was executed off duty, but that didn’t help him any.

The bottom line: If it’s Sotomayor, Gorsuch, or Barrett… they need to toe the line. They can’t allow unethical stuff like this to happen. People will lose faith in the Court. They face two places where discipline can come from; first the SCOTUS Rules, and then from which board holds their law license. It would be amusing to see a member of the SCOTUS without a law license. :)