The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Just Ketanji Brown Jackson Lands Major Book Deal for Her Memoir
It is becoming a pattern for Supreme Court justices to make significant amounts of money by publishing books.
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg reports that Random House has agreed to publish a memoir by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the newest Supreme Court justice. As Stohr notes, this has become something of a trend on the Court.
Jackson's memoir, Lovely One, will tell her life's story, from her childhood in Miami to her confirmation last year as the first Black female justice, according to her publisher, Random House.
It could also make Jackson the fourth current justice to get a book advance of at least $1 million, joining Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor and Amy Coney Barrett. Although Random House didn't disclose the terms of Jackson's deal, Barrett reportedly secured a $2 million advance from a different imprint at Penguin Random House LLC in 2021. . . .
Sotomayor got a $1.175 million advance in 2010 and all told has collected more than $3 million for her memoir. She has also written a series of children's books. Thomas collected $1.5 million for his 2007 memoir.
Stohr notes some might be "uneasy" with this sort of arrangement, but most of the legal ethics experts he consults do not see an ethical problem with justices getting paid to write books (and they are right).
"I don't see a problem with justices writing books in return for payment under ethics and recusal laws, as long as they are transparent about that and report the income as required under federal law," said Amanda Frost, a University of Virginia School of Law professor who studies judicial ethics.
Stephen Gillers, a judicial ethics scholar at New York University Law School, said that "there is no bar to a justice writing her memoirs and getting handsomely compensated for it."
When Justice Barrett signed her book deal, some progressive commentators were nonetheless scandalized. We will see whether they are as upset by Justice Jackson getting similar treatment.
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Another bought-but-unread number 1 book.
Sealed cases of books work almost as well as sandbags for flood control…
The thicker ones are useful for measuring penetration of various cartridges. At the end of each Med School course, we’d (OK, me and a few friends) would go to the dump (remember when you could just shoot up stuff at the dump?) and blast the textbooks into smithereens. Sometimes we’d just pick up phonebooks, or books the Library was giving away. (Thick books also useful for hollowing out and concealing a backup gun, surprising how well that works, nobody’s suspecting you to pull a gun out of “Morrison & Boyd”)
Frank “Bang!”
I just went out in the woods and did it.
Unsurprising that Dr. Ed thinks a good use of books is flood control.
All I can say is that if he was really involved in education in MA I’m delighted that he’s gone.
He’s a complete moron.
An evidenceless claim.
We have proof Republican ideological wank-books are bought like that. I’ve not seen it about biographies of any partisanship.
C’mon, S_0. It was not a claim, just a pointless snark.
Seemed like an accusation to me.
There’s empty spite and snarky accusations at her spilled all across this thread.
I see the same thing whenever Sotomayor comes up.
Not versus Kagan, though.
And of course you never engage it. No, your motives are pure as the driven snow.
Funny how all the driven snow around here is muddy as shit.
Tu quoque is a fallacy, chief.
Strawmen are better?
“Tu quoque is a fallacy…”
Actually, it’s not. It can be a perfectly good demonstration of hypocrisy when on point.
“We have proof Republican ideological wank-books are bought like that. I’ve not seen it about biographies of any partisanship.”
We know you embody all three monkeys when it comes to your side, Gaslightr0, but why are you partisan about “biographies”? Do you have a side gig as a ghostwriter?
Actually it is. Alleging hypocrisy is fine when the subject is hypocrisy. When the subject is spite and snarky accusations, alleging hypocrisy is a classic tu quoque fallacy.
Don’t be more of an idiot than you can help. The subject here IS hypocrisy, namely Gaslightr0’s in pretending (see downthread) that he’s only heard of Republicans using this trick.
In Chicago and most other major Blue Cities, Unions are great at buying truckloads of biography books as a “polite” way to launder money for favored candidates. Then donating them to local libraries for a tax write off. Hell, Obama has written 3 so far … and still counting. The first one funded his run for Senate and his purchase of an empty lot from Tony Rezko to solve a zoning violation problem that owuld have looked bad.
The subject here IS hypocrisy, namely Gaslightr0’s in pretending (see downthread) that he’s only heard of Republicans using this trick.
Which “trick” is that, Sport? You’re talking about two different “tricks.” Your attempt to conflate separate arguments into a single one to suit your narrative fools no one. We can read.
Any proof Obama’s books are being used to bribe him for his ex President powers?
This seems a pretty stupid theory you have
“Funny how all the driven snow around here is muddy as shit.”
I thought it was all yellow.
“Not versus Kagan, though.”
That is not surprizing. Kagan is a top class legal intellect
I mean, so are the other two. Sotomayor’s style is not my own but she is no dullard.
Something makes people who don’t give a fig about intellect hate the other two more.
“so are the other two.”
Maybe, but I’d put Kagan ahead of both. Moreover, she does not present as an ideologue. (For Jackson it is too early to tell).
I don’t doubt that Alphabet Guy and Pauline Kael both know no one who will read this book.
I’ve got a Bridge in Brooklyn you’d like
“We have proof Republican ideological wank-books are bought like that. ”
This has been another unsupported claim by Sarcastro.
Another AL skepticism fail. Fucking Google before you accuse me of lying. You fail every time.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/gop-book-deals/2021/04/15/154f3820-9ca5-11eb-b7a8-014b14aeb9e4_story.html
What I said is, it was unsupported. Not a lie. There’s a difference.
But, if you look at the NYT Bestseller list…
Well, it’s THAT’s a lie.
https://scribemedia.com/get-best-seller-list/#lie
For more, see here.
The NYTimes Best Seller list is not actually a “best sellers list” but an “editorial product”.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/new-york-times-bestseller-list-biased-book-news/
You quoted my thesis above.
This has nothing to do with it.
You are wandering off topic.
Government officials should only be able to be paid commensurate with the number of books actually sold. Too many people with massive book deals for books that don’t seem very interesting and frequently don’t do well.
I suspect that the book will sell well, but may not be as well read. What is interesting is that many people are getting out front and writting their own story rather than waiting for historians to write it about them.
“Government officials should only be able to be paid commensurate with the number of books actually sold”
You raise an interesting question – and it’s been a couple decades since I looked into it, but (back then, I was told) that SCOTUS justices could *not* accept speaking honorariums — only travel and lodging expenses. And that they had their own security.
At the time, I was the advisor of a student group without a whole lot of money who wished to bring conservative speakers to campus and hence I very much noticed that the group would not have to come up with the usual five figures if we had a SCOTUS justice speak. Or any judge, for that mater, and I brought a Housing Court judge on campus to speak about housing issues (a real issue with off campus apartments).
As it was explained to me, judicial ethics allowed judges to speak, to explain the law, and even answer questions about cases that weren’t before them — but not to be paid to do so.
If this is still true, how is it legal to pay for these books?
Maybe it was, but it ain’t.
Is everyone else doing so much of their work that the Justices have time for this?
Adler says there’s absolutely no possible problem with any of this, ignoring the obvious opportunity to use it for corruption.
But he’s always been able to be dense when he wants to be.
Navin R. Johnson had a more interesting life.
Wouldn’t this be a use for Congress’ power of investigation to craft laws?
How much money did they pull in for officials’ books? How do their deals compare to other famous people? Who bought large lots and where are they? Stored in a warehouse next to the Ark of the Covenant?
Remember, the people telling you to look the other way want to silence those who publish books against them before an election, and want ethical investigations for “collusion” and “hey such a book tearing at my candidate is worth a dollar amount to his opposition, which they didn’t report as a donation.”
These are facetious power brokers. Now, folks, line up and barf out what they order you to say on the subject, depending on context, as if you could think. Remember: that’s a mirage.
I have no problem with actual legitimate commercial book deals, as long as the Justice writes the book on her own time.
The trouble is it’s awfully easy to use a book deal as way to put a shitpot of money in a Justice’s pocket for reasons other than the actual economics of the deal.
It’s also an easy way to virtue signal without actually doing so.
Causes have flags, Justices have books.
Indeed it is bernard.
And it is a loophole that is hard to track down. But at least it is bipartisan
Gaslightr0 says he’s only heard of Republicans doing this. (But even the GOP doesn’t do it with “biographies”, because of reasons evidently.)
And Adler says not that it’s hard to address but that it’s not a problem at all.
The axe-grinding is very strong in those two.
Psst…you wanna buy some copies of John Marshall’s *Life of George Washington?*
https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Life-of-George-Washington/John-Marshall/9781629145013
Transparent money laundering.
Whose money is being laundered, do you think?
“When Justice Barrett signed her book deal, some progressive commentators were nonetheless scandalized. We will see whether they are as upset by Justice Jackson getting similar treatment.”
Don’t hold your breath.
Well, if those 30 people (out of 15,000,000 progressives) who actually expressed an opinion about Barrett in this aspect, then of course I hope that this tiny tiny fraction speak up now, to avoid looking like hypocrites.
But, Bumble, I hope you are ecstatic that, at the very least, as of today, 14 million, 9 hundred thousand, nine hundred and seventy progressives are not hypocrites. They have expressed EXACTLY the same amount of concern in both cases . . . namely, zero.
Thank you, as always, for your thoughtful, considerate reply; however, the quote was from Prof. Adler so you might want to address your post to him.
The 30 of your close confederates who expressed that opinion within your sight or earshot were not the only progs to do so.
Here’s another 500:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/literary-figures-sign-open-letter-amy-coney-barrett-book-deal-top-publisher
HIs braintenders didn’t allow him to know those facts.
His braintenders don’t allow him to know any facts. That would just confuse him.
I get why Thomas and Sotomayor would have interesting memoirs worth paying for and reading, but why ACB or KBJ? They have normal backgrounds for judges.
C’mon (Man!) ACB went to an All Girls School (!) in New Orleans (!!) and then First in her class at Notre Dame Law (I know, Reverend Sandusky, Bitter, Klinger, blablabla) ain’t no way she didn’t “polish” a few knobs, Nome, Sayin’?
OK, KBJ can’t tell a Schlong from a Gash, Affirmative Action Admission like Barry Hussein, hey, Erections have Consequences, doesn’t really matter if the Liberal Vote deserves to be on the court or not,
Frank
As to ACB, this alone is worthy of a detailed published response:
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/45896/dogma-lives-loudly-in-you-amy-coney-barretts-2017-confirmation-hearing
Starting with the history of attacks on Catholics in this country — google “Father John Bapste” sometime — she’s got issues.
What I would have done is put all the royalties into a blind trust to be given to her children upon her death (or resignation from the court). Then it’s her legacy and not her current profits. Same thing with Justice Jackson — either to family or political cause — when she is gone…
I’ll bet the “Dog-ma” lives loudly in ACB, preferably with an arched back and sweat beads (is that just my turn on?)
Frank
PB&J can write two chapters on how come she doesn’t know what a woman is, even though she is one.
is she?
Do *you* know what a “woman” is? Brown-Jackson was aware of two issues that you ignore here. First is the linguistic issue of the difference between what the philosophers call “ordinary language” and scientific/technical language. Conservatives often write as though “woman” were a scientific term or category, but it is not. The question posed to her invited her to offer a technical account of “woman,” but there is none: it’s a lexeme in our ordinary language that does not fit perfectly into the categories recognized by science, which focus on biology rather than the antique “man” or “woman.” And that raises the second issue that she was aware of: the question was not intended to be a serious discussion of sex or gender, but a ‘got-cha” question that had no real meaningful answer. Brown-Jackson was clearly pondering how to respond without falling into the silly trap that was being set. It was a question — like your comment — that reveals more about the questioner than about Brown-Jackson.
I see we found another lying marxist post -modernist looking to destroy all meaning.
I am neither a marxist nor a postmodernist (though I would accept “poststructuralist”), but your ignorance of the technical issues here might disqualify you from having an opinion worth attending to. Bye.
From my post yesterday:
And in other SC news:
Supreme Court Justice PB&J (the first Black ?woman?) to serve on the Supreme Court will be writing a memoir tentatively entitled “Lovely One”.
“Justice Jackson invites readers into her life and world, chronicling the experiences that have shaped her,” the announcement from Penguin Random House reads. “From growing up in Miami with educator parents who broke barriers during the 1960s to honing her voice as an oratory champion to performing improv and participating in pivotal student movements at Harvard to balancing the joys and demands of marriage and motherhood while advancing in Big Law — and, finally, to making history upon joining the nation’s highest court.”
I’m sure this will be a NYT’s best seller.
You’ll be able to buy it at Dollar Tree a month after it is released.
It might make money. All the prog librarians will buy several copies.
I’d read Valerie Bertinelli’s “Enough Already” first, at least she can tell a Gash from a Schlong.
“a different imprint at Penguin Random House LLC “
Could someone please explain exactly (a) what an “imprint” is and more importantly (b) how it differs from other “imprints” owned by the same publisher?
When I’m down to DC, I usually shop at Giant because while it is a separate name, it is identical to the Stop & Shop grocery stores in New England — everything is in the same place, all the employee uniforms are the same, it’s just got a different name and folk who speak English a little bit different from the version I am familiar with. They are both owned by some Belgian conglomerate.
Is this what “imprint” means? Or is it something else?
That said, I must admit that I do not like the idea of these books. Memoirs are one thing — as are “my version” books purporting to be memoirs — these are people out of power seeking to either achieve immortality or at least get their version of the story out there for historians to cite.
In fairness, I can see both Justice Barrett and Justice Jackson wanting to get a “my side of the story” book out there because of the issues raised during their confirmations — actually Clarence Thomas too. If you’ve been publicly defamed — and I have — you really want to tell your side of the story.
But still, it is a disturbing trend.
A bigger one is that only famous people can get published….
Love him or hate him — and I’ve met him personally — I doubt that Stephen King would be published today.
Different imprints are marketing devices. Speaking broadly, they used by publishers to suggest what category a book falls into. So they may use one imprint for mysteries, another for history books, etc.
They also let the publisher use different physical standards – paper, binding, etc., and different logos for different categories without confusing the market. “Serious” books get one treatment, airplane books another.
An employee at a publisher explained how things worked in the days before Amazon. The salesman opens the list of imprint “Alpha” and explains to the distributor or chain buyer why the books there are great, in some order depending on how much the publisher wants to push the book. At the conclusion of that discussion the salesman opens the list of imprint “Beta” and both parties pretend it’s a different salesman working for a different company. Nobody has to decide whether an Edward O. Wilson ant book is a better deal than a Michael Crichton thriller because they are on different lists.
Writing a memoir at the age of 52, just after being appointed to a new court, strongly suggests that the person does not expect to do anything notable for the rest of their life.
Churchill wrote his autobiography in 1929-30 when he was 56.
good read, joined the Army at 20 (remember when “the best and brightest” served in the military??), serving in Cuber(Cuba), India, Prisoner of War (as a Reporter) during the Boer War, escaped to Mozambique, went back in the Army and fought in South Africa, liberating a score of POW camps.
Oh yeah, that was all by the time he was 25, when he was elected to Parliament (just plain old Parliament, not Parliament-Funkadelic)
and I’ve heard he did some shit after that.
Frank “Love’s Churchill, especially the Cigars”
And he ended that saying that he lived happily ever after — perhaps true, but it vastly understated what was to come, even while evincing an expectation of an unremarkable future.
and those unthankful Limey’s through him out right after the war (the original “Rigged” Erection) but re-erected in 51′ with a narrow Majority in the House despite losing the “Popular” Vote (sound familiar) . Resigned after a Stroke because, duh, (remember when being Demented was considered a disqualification for high pubic office?)
England’s been good for nothing but Rock bands and Soccer since then,
Frank
I remember when corruption was disqualifying, at least in the US (1974, specifically). Dementia is generally covered for by aides and is no obstacle to reelection if the policies remain popular, whether they come from the politician or from the like-minded aides.
“Disqualifying”?? Tricky Penis Milhouse resigned because he didn’t have a “Strong enough Political Base” not due to not knowing if he was in Cambodia (isn’t it “Kampuchea” now?) or Colombia, repeatedly referring to his Vice President as “President Common Law Harris” and just find me one example of Milhouse going all creepy on an elementary student, or giving Don Rumsfeld’s wife a deep shoulder massage behind his back (Rummy would have kicked the shit out of whoever did it, no matter what legal consequences)
And I’m just a simple Passer of the Gas (not that simple, and it’s not all Gas) but even I can tell Senescent J’s Brain Scrambles aren’t getting any better with “watchful waiting”
Frank
Yes, Nixon was corrupt, and the Republicans of the time rejected him. Biden has butchered words for decades, and is unlikely to be senile. It’s Republicans who created the precedent of sticking with a senile office holder, and the precedent of ignoring criminal behavior, as long as they represent that party.
“Unlikely to be Senile”??? are you Senile yourself? or just stupid?Sure, Reagan had a little of the A-heimers his last year in Orifice (when he was 77, how old is Senescent J??) “Ignoring Criminal Behavior” umm (Samuel Jackson voice) you Do know this is a “Legal” blog, and there is this invention called “Lawyers” who know about such crimes as “Perjury” which a certain POTUS who’s name rhymes with Bill Clinton committed,
I know, I liked BC too, voted for him, (umm, no voted for Perot in 92, didn’t vote in 96 (didn’t get back from my arduous Military duty in Italy in time, OK, I did, getting absentee ballot was harder before AlGore invented the Internets, did get one for 2000, in Florida (didn’t vote for AlGore)
Frank
Unlikely? Yes. The greatest entertainment of the 2020 election was Fox News and other Republican flacks going on about “he’s senile, he doesn’t know where he is, he can’t remember anyone’s name” and then interspersed with Donald Trump doing exactly that.
They backed off from the senility claims before the debates precisely because they knew he wasn’t senile; then their excuse was that after so many years in the Senate he could win a debate while being brain dead.
Clinton’s lie about his affair really didn’t implicate anything governmental; against that put all of Richard Nixon’s shenanigans, Iran-Contra, not defending the country from terrorism, going to war with Iraq twice under false pretenses, and the endless corruption of the Trump administration.
Churchill was out of power then, and had no way of knowing that he would return to power. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill#The_%22Wilderness_Years%22:_1929%E2%80%931939
Think honestly here — if he thought he would be fighting a second war with Germany, would he even have mentioned how England had hacked the German codes, let alone how helpful that had been to the Royal Navy? Of course not!
I don’t know when Churchill anticipated Hitler’s rise — but it wasn’t until 1933 that the Nazis actually started achieving power — and no one expected Hindenburg to die. Hindenburg’s death — natural causes — is what leapfroged Hitler and Hindenburg wasn’t there to stomp on him anymore…
“- and no one expected Hindenburg to die.”
He was 87.
How old was Queen Elizabeth? OK, peoples been expecting her to die for 25 years.
After Hindenburg’s death, Hitler’s Plan B was to prop up Hindenburg and play Weekend At Paul’s.
Kind of like what’s going on in the White House now?
*Sigh*…so who’s Hitler here?
Lots of wanna-be’s come to mind.
Pete Booty-Judge, has a fascination with Scandinavian languages, exaggerated Military service history, “Made the trains run on time”, Homosexual (confirmed with Booty-Judge, suspected with Adolph)
And he had his best years ahead of him.
Unlike our current Alzheimer-ist in Chief
Sure we’ll see her Senate testimony when Judge Thomas asks her who put the pubic hair in his Coke.
Alternatively, it suggests that a $1M+ advance is attractive, regardless of one’s expectations about one’s future.
Odd title. Did Jackson get appointed because she was the lovely one? No, she was the Black woman.
Is she Black? I can’t tell a Dong from a Nancy
Better than not being selected because she’s a black woman, which would be more historically consistent.
While not commenting on the subject deal (doubtful anyone reads & comprehends what I just wrote), is it fair to say it’s simply understood at this point that the astronomical book deals and public speaking fees showered on public figure are nothing more than bribes and/or money laundering? I mean this is on par with spending tens of millions of dollars on artwork as far as transparent corruption goes.
That is my rebuttable assumption. If the author has a history of books that would justify their advance, I would instead assume it’s a legitimate deal. If the book ends up grossing significantly more than enough to justify the advance, I’ll probably be generous and assume that the publisher’s foresight was good (or they had a crystal ball that worked). I’m skeptical that is a common occurrence, though.
This should be verifiable, though. Do first-time books by political figures have a history of losing money for the publisher, or not?
Do first-time books by political figures have a history of losing money for the publisher, or not?
This is the question I would like to see answered.
I’m dubious that these books actually pay off for the publisher. If so, what is going on?
I can think of a number of explanations.
Maybe the publisher views them as prestige/promotional projects – sort of like car companies sponsoring racing teams.
Maybe the vanity of some publishing exec motivates things.
Maybe the publisher itself has some sort of political agenda and is effectively bribing the author. That looks unlikely in the case of a Justice, but plausible wrt elected officials.
Or, as has happened, there are bulk buyers waiting, with the intent of influencing the author.
Wow, pretty so-fist-i-cated Legal Anal-lysis from Jerry S. ,
Guess it’s easier to get on https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx
Internets during a “Slow” football weekend (OK, I’m sorry the Bills DB had V Fib after getting nailed in the Chest, Jeez-us, in 1971 a Lions player Dropped Dead (I know, “How could they tell?”) and game continued (no injury, premature Coronary Artery Disease)
and whats the matter? Clarence T didn’t participate in your “Screenings”
Eat that (redacted) “Klinger” (ooh, I called you what you call everyone else, even those who aren’t ashamed of where they went to Law School (went?? you’re asking us to believe you Grad-jew-ma-cated??, no wonder you won’t tell)
Frank “University of South Alabama, Umm, 20th Century”
Not sophisticated legal analysis; not even legal analysis.
Just pointing out the cowardice, hypocrisy, and polemical partnership that is just about all this faux libertarian blog has left.
Well recognizing that you’re not sophisticated,legal, or an Anal-yst is a starting point.
And what does “Polemic” mean, and give me a definition without Googling AlGore’s internets. It’ll be beneficial for us both, because I don’t know what it means (One benefit of Medical Ed-Jew-ma-cation, one little blank to write your answer, not pages to BS about how you don’t know) and don’t think you do either,
And to bad your Home State of PA has gone totally Blue(balls), if you still had Corbett or Schweiker in the Gov’nuh’s Mansion, maybe Speaker McCarthy (worst name ever, from either side) could have helped you out
Frank
Self-Answering (love Self-everything)
Po·lem·ic
[pəˈlemik]
NOUN
a strong verbal or written attack on someone or something:
OK, guess “polemic” was used correctly,
“My Bad” (HT Ebonics)
Frank
Adler says Jackson’s book deal is unproblematic.
So what are you imagining a “similar comment” about Mrs. Thomas would be, exactly, and why are you thinking one is called for while delivering the exact opposite?
But, yes, we all know you’re the local moron-in-a-basement, so there’s that.
I was commenting with respect to the swipe at the liberal-libertarian mainstream, not Prof. Adler’s opinion with respect to the book.
Do you ever wonder why this blog attracts so many dumbasses and bigots, Prof. Adler? Does it bother you? Have you considered joining Prof. Kerr on the “too well to attend” (with rare exceptions recently, although I sense Prof. Kerr’s association with this flaming shitstorm is going to end soon*) list?
* I blame his likely departure on his character and intellect.
You wrote, “That is an interesting observation about partisanship in this context, Prof. Adler. / Do any of the Conspirators wish to advance similar comments concerning Ginni Thomas’ financial arrangements…”
So, no, you’re lying when you pretend that the subject you demanded “similar comments” about was anything other than Jackson’s financial arrangements (which Adler finds unproblematic) And then you lie again by pretending that I said anything about some other aspect of “Prof. Adler’s opinion with respect to the book”, whatever that’s supposed to mean.
Haven’t you learned by now that your posts here only make your nose grow and not your dick, Stinky?
I wrote about Prof. Adler’s partisan sniping (suggesting liberals will be silent with respect to the book deal), and countered by inviting conservatives to stop demonstrating cowardice and a blind spot with respect to the issue of Ginni Thomas’ court-related financial arrangements.
I didn’t expect my invitation to incline a single clinger to change course. Conservatives are quiet about the Thomases issue because of partisanship and fear of being ostracized by the Federalist Society and conservative funding sources.
I hope the Conspirators will prove me wrong by questioning the financial arrangements and associations of the Thomases. I figure every one of them would rather eat a goofy red hat while praising John Eastman, though.
You must have dropped off your meds again. Ginny Thomas isn’t a Supreme Court Justice.
Try harder clinger.
She is the conduit by which the funds flow to the justice, rather than the justice. If you do not understand the relevance, ask someone who has been properly educated to try to explain it. You might have to travel through several towns to find an educated person in your part of the country, but it would be worthwhile.
Somewhere, “Reverend” Kirtland, your Village is missing its Idiot.
“I just want to note for the record that there has been significant inflation since Justice Barrett’s book contract was signed.”–Justice Jackson
Oh, since Senescent Joe assumed the Oval Orifice?? Yes, I think anyone who drives an (ICE) vehicle has noticed.
Frank
Limiting ourselves to books published while on the bench…
Let’s see…there’s Joseph Stories’ Commentaries on the Constitution and his book on conflict of laws.
James Wilson’s law lectures can’t have sold well enough because he went to debtors’ prison. Maybe with a better advance? His agent must have been asleep at the switch.
There’s David Brewer’s *The United States a Christian Nation.* (Not to be confused with David Christian’s *The United States a Brewer Nation*).
There’s…actually, I’ll just skip Justice William Douglas’ books published while on the bench, I don’t have the energy to list them all.
William Rehnquist’s *The Supreme Court* and his impeachment book.
I think Earl Warren published a bestseller about the Kennedy assassination, though I’m not sure he got to keep the profits.
How big were their advances?
Unless you meant to describe Ms. Jackson as a just woman, the title is missing ‘ice’.
Are you sure? she can’t tell herself,
Frank “Lets see, OK, definitely evidence of “Manhood” (as small as it is) in my pants)
In the eyes of Republicans, she is a Black woman, and therefore “Just Ketanji Brown Jackson.”
This is one of the reasons Republicans are increasingly failures at the modern American marketplace of ideas. There just aren’t enough unreconstructed old bigots left in America to give Republicans much of a political future.
The typo in the first word of the headline has been there for hours and would constitute an embarrassment if posted by anyone other than Prof. Adler, who has consistently demonstrated a deficit of regard for both his writing and his audience.
Guess Adler like Somin can’t be bothered once it is posted.
You guys prefer the Blackman-Barnett level of scholarship exhibited at this blog?
Why not just pay Supreme Court justices so well that they (and any spouse) are set for life (and retirement), and then outlaw income from any other source? Would an inflation-adjustable cost of $18 million a year seem exorbitant (or unreasonably low) to keep the court looking beyond reproach?
While we are at it, ban them from lending their names or personal presence to organizations, events, or issues with political implications which might come before the Court. On the basis of previous conduct, I would be content to see every member of this Court impeached over these issues. Seems like any obligation to guard the public-facing part of the notion of judicial temperament has been thrown overboard, if it ever existed. It ought to exist.
Umm, your proposals??
“No” it’s Amurica (Man! HT Senescent Joe), learn the rules,
Frank “Freedom ain’t Free”
“Why not just pay Supreme Court justices so well that they (and any spouse) are set for life (and retirement), and then outlaw income from any other source? ”
That one, I’d buy, SL.
It depends (obviously) on whether the publisher who pays the Supreme Court justice for his or her memoir is a political activist publisher. Regnery or Vanguard Press paying a million bucks to a justice is very different from Knopf or Penguin or Harper-Collins-Morrow.
Seems like a distinction which would prove hard to incorporate in law or policy.
Try really hard.
Not so obvious at all Toady.
Corporate CEO’s and board have demonstrated a remarkable proclivity toward politics and ideological promotion in recent decades.
Thanks for sharing these awesome blog posts. Our online academic essay writing help will complete your research proposalwithin your deadline.
De-ice the title, and it’s just Ketanji Brown Jackson.