When I was a public employee (actually a research assistant at a state university, but that still qualifies), I had to sit through training every year reminding me that it's against ethics rules to accept a gift worth more than $50. As a private employee contracting for the government, I was similarly reminded of some ethics rules... and when we actually had government visits, the government workers had to pay for their own coffee and lunch (basically sandwich, chips, and cookies, standard conference fare) during the breaks.<p>Alito, in the extremely unlikely chance that you're reading this comment: if you want to understand if someone could reasonably find that a gift might pose a conflict of interest, why not try asking your own law clerks? Or better yet, take the same training they have to. It is absolutely gobsmacking to me when you have elected officials taking massive gifts and defending themselves by saying they can still be impartial, when their unelected underlings aren't allowed a thousandth the leeway without falling afoul of election rules.<p>Although, given that he thinks "I was offered a seat on a private jet that would otherwise have gone vacant" is a defense... he is really, really out of touch with how most of the country will see things.
It's insane. Many government workers can't accept gifts of more than $25 or some similar miniscule amount due to conflicts of interest, but somehow Supreme Court justices, some of the most powerful people in the U.S. government and world have no limits and people are seemingly okay with them receiving massive favors from billionaires who couldn't possibly have agendas.<p>Democracy isn't just for sale. It's been sold.
"In early July 2008, Samuel Alito stood on a riverbank in a remote corner of Alaska. The Supreme Court justice was on vacation at a luxury fishing lodge that charged more than $1,000 a day, and after catching a king salmon nearly the size of his leg, Alito posed for a picture. To his left, a man stood beaming: Paul Singer, a hedge fund billionaire who has repeatedly asked the Supreme Court to rule in his favor in high-stakes business disputes."<p>How can I get invited to one of these vacations?
This is all Federalist Society (which is still ostensibly non-partisan lol) networking. What they're doing is one of the great political scandals of our time, and hardly anyone knows about it.
Contrarian observations from the article:<p>- Singer was another guest on the trip, not the one paying for Alito.<p>- Singer's side won the later case by 7-1.<p>- $100k was the cost of the entire plane, not Alito's seat.
Here comes the usual "everyone does this [and no I cannot provide any comparable examples]."<p>How fortunate Alito got to live and corrupt himself in this age of peak GOP cravenness!
I've always wondered if paying important government officials more would help. A supreme court justice makes less than many run-of-the-mill doctors, and is an extremely consequential person who could probably be making several multiples of what they make in the private sector. I'd guess that if there were somehow market forces at play, the salaries of these kinds of jobs would be a lot higher and maybe we'd get better people and less temptation for corruption.
propublica rarely gets things egregiously wrong or even mildly wrong.<p>It is quite concerning that the SCOTUS judges can have such networking. So far it is been mostly the right wing judges (what a shame that we have to say this about our court). It could be the rest of the right wing judges. Some of the left wing judges possibly too, which I wouldn't be surprise given the hubris of RBG --- although might be unfair to give guilt by association.<p>Regardless, my point is that letting the SCOTUS judges self-enforce ethical requirements is clearly not working and can never work. I don't blame the judges. I blame systems that don't give incentives and safeguards.
Does anyone actually think Alito (or Thomas) rule conservatively because of rich conservatives taking them on vacations? It seems clear that the causation is reversed. Which is not to say this behavior isn't ill-advised.
What on earth is a "GOP billionaire"? Or a luxury fishing vacation? How does it differ from a fishing trip? The boat is nicer? Is there a butler on board serving filet Mignon and champagne?<p>The propaganda push is real trying to get Americans to think of the supreme court (of course, only the "conservative" justices) as corrupt. It's unthinkable that highly ambitious, successful people have highly ambitious and successful friends. It's impossible that people like to spend time with like minded people who agree with them on their core beliefs. No, it must be that they're getting paid to rule a certain way on the court.<p>I can't tell if this push is to get some justices to retire so that Biden gets to appoint more, or if it is a bigger play to remove faith in the supreme court and give more power to the executive. Either way this is a dangerous game being played.<p>The supreme court is less corrupt now than it ever has been IMO, since the first supreme court. And it it sacred, if the supreme court gets corrupted, the public loses faith in it or something like that, the republic will not survive.
Should have channeled the gifts through non-profits:<p><i>George Soros-funded DAs represent 20% of Americans after $40M was funneled into races</i> - <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/george-soros-funded-das-represent-20-americans-40m-funneled-races-report-finds" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.foxnews.com/media/george-soros-funded-das-repres...</a>