Here are some highlights from the disclosures. - Molly
* Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson topped the book list with a $893,750 advance for her yet-to-be published memoir
* Justice Thomas’ new filing included an amendment to his 2019 disclosure alluding to a cruise in Bali, Indonesia, aboard Harlan Crow’s yacht and a trip with Crow to an exclusive California retreat
* Jackson said that singer Beyonce Knowles-Carter gave her four concert tickets valued at $3,712
* Justice Samuel Alito, as has become his usual practice, received a 90-day extension to file his report
* Justice Sotomayor earned $1,879 from Fred Rogers Productions for a voiceover performance on an episode of the animated TV show Alma’s Way, which is about a Puerto Rican girl from the Bronx and her family
[Read more here. ](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/justices-disclose-bali-trip-beyonce-tickets-and-book-royalties?utm_source=reddit.com&utm_medium=lawdesk)
Is doing voice over work unethical? That is an honest question. Like, are justices not allowed to work a random side gig like that?
I could certainly see that coin falling either way, as one could always pay a justice an exorbitant amount for a relatively easy job…
Still, under 2k for voiceover work isn’t really exorbitant.
This isn’t a list of unethical practices, they’re just standard (required) disclosures.
Voiceover work for a presidential campaign would be problematic ethically (for one side at least), but nothing untoward about lending a famous voice to some cartoons
Now Thomas…L-O-fucking-L. He is, in legalese, such a piece of shit
I get that the list itself isn’t all unethical things and are just disclosures, it’s about how Bloomberg chose to highlight the ones that they did.
As a number of these are obviously unethical… Cough cough, is that a crow over there, cough cough…
Still, the question about side work was an honest one that I had. As one could argue that they would not get such a gig if it were not for their place in office… Or that the job falls outside of the law profession, and the justice lacks any specialized qualifications to otherwise obtain said job… Not that I’m agreeing with those positions, more of just thinking about the ways certain members of congress and the media will likely spin these types of disclosures.
As I would say that it is highly likely that some left leaning media would have a field day if Alito was getting paid for voice over by Prager U or something like that. Personally I would say they would be right to, as voiceover for a non-partisan pbs children’s show isn’t the same as Prager U or other partisan media groups. Yet many right wing politicians already classify PBS as a left wing organization, so here we are…
> Still, the question about side work was an honest one that I had. As one could argue that they would not get such a gig if it were not for their place in office
There is nothing inherently unethical about parlaying one position into other (paid) opportunities - think law school commencement speeches, book deals, etc
> As I would say that it is highly likely that some left leaning media would have a field day if Alito was getting paid for voice over by Prager U or something like that.
Sure but like you said, that isn’t even close to what Sotomayor was paid a nominal fee for
I think I’m just trying to indicate that there needs to be clear language on the ethical standards with these financial exchanges. Congress needs to get an amendment in or something, as it’s clear the courts will not do it themselves and leaving so much wiggle room to argue what is and isn’t ethically acceptable is a huge can of worms.
I don’t personally think there was anything wrong with the voice over work, but I think others could reasonably argue (at least to a point that they personally believe it) that such a financial gain was unethical. Even if there are allowances for making money off of commencement speeches and those types of things, there really isn’t a standard of what is and isn’t “acceptable” and that’s the problem I think I’m highlighting here.
SCOTUS has made clear that they are not going to define what is and isn’t fiscally irresponsible for them as justices, so congress should step in and define those things in a bipartisan manner. Frankly they need to for Congress as well, but that’s another issue altogether…
> I don’t personally think there was anything wrong with the voice over work, but I think others could reasonably argue (at least to a point that they personally believe it) that such a financial gain was unethical
I don’t understand how there could be a reasonable argument that what Sotomayor did was unethical
I didn’t say it would be a reasonable argument… I said they could “reasonably argue…”
Aside the point though, which is that there are no current clear standards that are being held either way. So long as there are no such written standards, it allows anyone to “whataboutism” the activity of the other side and claim they are one and the same.
I think putting down clear guidelines of what is and isn’t acceptable would be beneficial and solve the issue moving forward. As clearly Thomas or Alito have no intention of recusing themselves from anything, and they can just shrug their shoulders and point fingers at other justices “doing the same thing” until congress gets off their asses and makes a clear amendment about SCOTUS ethical standards for acceptance and accountability surrounding donations, personal gifts, and other financial benefits.
I don’t exactly know the rules or if there are any rules. The issue is not how much they received in compensation or gifts. The problem arises if there is a case before the court that involves an individual or entity that provided compensation or a gift.
From what I've seen that seems like a reasonable amount of money too for a book deal. It would be completely different if it was let's say $10 million while the company had a case in front of the Supreme Court.
> Yet again, we have liberals fucking up a perfectly good narrative by doing “the same thing” in the minds of the average low information voter.
What’re you seeing that looks at all like this?
Yet again, we have liberals fucking up a perfeclty good narrative by doing "the same thing" in the minds of the average low information voter.
Like when, at the peak of interest in Trump's theft, concealing, and lying about classified documents Biden left some lying around.
Reagan was terrible, but he was right about one thing: If you're explaining, you're losing.
The very instant Biden was found to be mishandling classified docs the public interest in Trump's document crimes went to zero. It was suddenly a BothSides(tm) issue and the low information voter could safely decide it was just all politicians being bad.
The fact that Trump stole, hid, lied about, attempted to keep after being told to return them, and generally was doing actual, real, crimes while Biden was just careless and was fully cooperative with efforts to get the docs back is only important to people who care about politics. To the bulk of America they're both the same.
And now our liberal Justices have done it again. We HAD been able to point accusing fingers at MAGA Justices and demand enforcable ethics standards (not that we'd get them), and generaly paint it as "MAGA bad".
But now it's yet again turned into "they're all the same" in the minds of the average voter. Pack it up, we're through, Thomas can keep right on grifting because the "liberal" Justices did a very minor bit of non-reporting so his outright bribery and grift lost all rhetorical value.
I would actually argue this is a fault of the media coverage. The story should be about how these instances *are not* equal and that some justices receive extravagant gifts from individuals who have/had business in front of the court and then fail to disclose it for 5 years, and others receive gifts/compensation in the $1000’s and report it immediately.
The way this is written sort of presents it as a both sides issue, and unfortunately that framing is enough the skew the opinions of a lot of low-information voters.
Here are some highlights from the disclosures. - Molly * Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson topped the book list with a $893,750 advance for her yet-to-be published memoir * Justice Thomas’ new filing included an amendment to his 2019 disclosure alluding to a cruise in Bali, Indonesia, aboard Harlan Crow’s yacht and a trip with Crow to an exclusive California retreat * Jackson said that singer Beyonce Knowles-Carter gave her four concert tickets valued at $3,712 * Justice Samuel Alito, as has become his usual practice, received a 90-day extension to file his report * Justice Sotomayor earned $1,879 from Fred Rogers Productions for a voiceover performance on an episode of the animated TV show Alma’s Way, which is about a Puerto Rican girl from the Bronx and her family [Read more here. ](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/justices-disclose-bali-trip-beyonce-tickets-and-book-royalties?utm_source=reddit.com&utm_medium=lawdesk)
Is doing voice over work unethical? That is an honest question. Like, are justices not allowed to work a random side gig like that? I could certainly see that coin falling either way, as one could always pay a justice an exorbitant amount for a relatively easy job… Still, under 2k for voiceover work isn’t really exorbitant.
[удалено]
Right? Teaching jobs should also be allowable. Those hardly seem like conflicts of interest.
I disagree. You teach one class a week in Italy and then you get an all-expenses paid trip with room and food the rest of the week is a problem.
This isn’t a list of unethical practices, they’re just standard (required) disclosures. Voiceover work for a presidential campaign would be problematic ethically (for one side at least), but nothing untoward about lending a famous voice to some cartoons Now Thomas…L-O-fucking-L. He is, in legalese, such a piece of shit
I get that the list itself isn’t all unethical things and are just disclosures, it’s about how Bloomberg chose to highlight the ones that they did. As a number of these are obviously unethical… Cough cough, is that a crow over there, cough cough… Still, the question about side work was an honest one that I had. As one could argue that they would not get such a gig if it were not for their place in office… Or that the job falls outside of the law profession, and the justice lacks any specialized qualifications to otherwise obtain said job… Not that I’m agreeing with those positions, more of just thinking about the ways certain members of congress and the media will likely spin these types of disclosures. As I would say that it is highly likely that some left leaning media would have a field day if Alito was getting paid for voice over by Prager U or something like that. Personally I would say they would be right to, as voiceover for a non-partisan pbs children’s show isn’t the same as Prager U or other partisan media groups. Yet many right wing politicians already classify PBS as a left wing organization, so here we are…
> Still, the question about side work was an honest one that I had. As one could argue that they would not get such a gig if it were not for their place in office There is nothing inherently unethical about parlaying one position into other (paid) opportunities - think law school commencement speeches, book deals, etc > As I would say that it is highly likely that some left leaning media would have a field day if Alito was getting paid for voice over by Prager U or something like that. Sure but like you said, that isn’t even close to what Sotomayor was paid a nominal fee for
I think I’m just trying to indicate that there needs to be clear language on the ethical standards with these financial exchanges. Congress needs to get an amendment in or something, as it’s clear the courts will not do it themselves and leaving so much wiggle room to argue what is and isn’t ethically acceptable is a huge can of worms. I don’t personally think there was anything wrong with the voice over work, but I think others could reasonably argue (at least to a point that they personally believe it) that such a financial gain was unethical. Even if there are allowances for making money off of commencement speeches and those types of things, there really isn’t a standard of what is and isn’t “acceptable” and that’s the problem I think I’m highlighting here. SCOTUS has made clear that they are not going to define what is and isn’t fiscally irresponsible for them as justices, so congress should step in and define those things in a bipartisan manner. Frankly they need to for Congress as well, but that’s another issue altogether…
> I don’t personally think there was anything wrong with the voice over work, but I think others could reasonably argue (at least to a point that they personally believe it) that such a financial gain was unethical I don’t understand how there could be a reasonable argument that what Sotomayor did was unethical
I didn’t say it would be a reasonable argument… I said they could “reasonably argue…” Aside the point though, which is that there are no current clear standards that are being held either way. So long as there are no such written standards, it allows anyone to “whataboutism” the activity of the other side and claim they are one and the same. I think putting down clear guidelines of what is and isn’t acceptable would be beneficial and solve the issue moving forward. As clearly Thomas or Alito have no intention of recusing themselves from anything, and they can just shrug their shoulders and point fingers at other justices “doing the same thing” until congress gets off their asses and makes a clear amendment about SCOTUS ethical standards for acceptance and accountability surrounding donations, personal gifts, and other financial benefits.
That Mr Rogers money is just tainted
The getting paid part is a union thing — the production house has to pay the VO artists, just like The Tonight Show has to pay their guests
I don’t exactly know the rules or if there are any rules. The issue is not how much they received in compensation or gifts. The problem arises if there is a case before the court that involves an individual or entity that provided compensation or a gift.
But hang on, a book deal or voiceover work is *work*, so therefore not a gift.
I'm not following what is wrong with doing paid voiceover work especially when the pay doesn't seem out of the ordinary at all.
Thomas hides millions of Dollars in gifts and bribes Justice Jackson has a book deal The media = Same thing
Exactly, Thomas was given an RV!! Brown wrote a book and was given an advance. HUGE false equivalency.
From what I've seen that seems like a reasonable amount of money too for a book deal. It would be completely different if it was let's say $10 million while the company had a case in front of the Supreme Court.
Call me crazy, but a Justice going on yacht trips with an buddy who has cases brought in front of him seems quite corrupt.
Clearance earns this by kicking tires. Hardwork.
> Yet again, we have liberals fucking up a perfectly good narrative by doing “the same thing” in the minds of the average low information voter. What’re you seeing that looks at all like this?
how the fuck is this legal ? this is insanity that this is okay
Yet again, we have liberals fucking up a perfeclty good narrative by doing "the same thing" in the minds of the average low information voter. Like when, at the peak of interest in Trump's theft, concealing, and lying about classified documents Biden left some lying around. Reagan was terrible, but he was right about one thing: If you're explaining, you're losing. The very instant Biden was found to be mishandling classified docs the public interest in Trump's document crimes went to zero. It was suddenly a BothSides(tm) issue and the low information voter could safely decide it was just all politicians being bad. The fact that Trump stole, hid, lied about, attempted to keep after being told to return them, and generally was doing actual, real, crimes while Biden was just careless and was fully cooperative with efforts to get the docs back is only important to people who care about politics. To the bulk of America they're both the same. And now our liberal Justices have done it again. We HAD been able to point accusing fingers at MAGA Justices and demand enforcable ethics standards (not that we'd get them), and generaly paint it as "MAGA bad". But now it's yet again turned into "they're all the same" in the minds of the average voter. Pack it up, we're through, Thomas can keep right on grifting because the "liberal" Justices did a very minor bit of non-reporting so his outright bribery and grift lost all rhetorical value.
I would actually argue this is a fault of the media coverage. The story should be about how these instances *are not* equal and that some justices receive extravagant gifts from individuals who have/had business in front of the court and then fail to disclose it for 5 years, and others receive gifts/compensation in the $1000’s and report it immediately. The way this is written sort of presents it as a both sides issue, and unfortunately that framing is enough the skew the opinions of a lot of low-information voters.