New Divided Argument Episode: My Despised World

After a month-long hiatus, Dan Epps and I have posted a new, 2-hour-long podcast episode: My Despised World (Dan came up with the title.) Most of it discusses two of June's jurisdictional decisions -- Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway, and United States v. Texas -- with a shorter discussion of the affirmative action cases (see here for my earlier post on those).

But first we discuss this AP story about Justice Sotomayor's book business, and speculate fervently about whether Justice Sotomayor physically signs all of the "signed" copies of her books herself, and if so, how she found the time to sign 11,000 copies for a single appearance at Michigan State. Further speculation welcome!

Comments

[Magister]

Good to know that "Who actually signed Sotomayor's book" is the most important SCOTUS scandal of today.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What do you expect Prof. Baude to discuss -- the rampant bigotry at the white, male, right-wing blog with which he continues to associate his name and that of his employer?

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe he could discuss RBG's mysterious $1million prize.

https://freebeacon.com/courts/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-mysterious-1-million-prize/

[Magister]

Compared to Alito and Thomas, it would be much easier to check her subsequent cases, since she died less than a year after receiving that prize and everyone knew about the prize, so anyone with a case against the Berggruen Foundation could request her recusal if they thought it would influence her. The slam on Alito and Thomas is that they received gifts from billionaires and did not report it, in clear violation of reporting requirements, and parties to later cases could not discover any resulting conflicts of interest.

The main complaint in the link from Bumble is that she didn't want the full list of charities she gave the prize to to be released; given that it would politicize any charity receiving such money, I can understand why. It makes a big deal out of her giving money to the American Bar Foundation, which is associated with the American Bar Association, which submitted amicus briefs in later cases. So ... she bribed them? To do something something something? Makes no sense.

Clear and enforceable rules on Supreme Court Justices would be welcome.

Here's another link, which is not from a far right source.
https://theconversation.com/is-it-ethical-for-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-to-accept-a-1-million-prize-yes-but-its-hard-to-explain-126007

[Gandydancer]

The “gifts” to Thomas and Alito were not in fact generally in clear violation of reporting requirements. And the sources of those gifts did not in fact have subsequent cases before SCOTUS.

If the $1 million gift to Ginsberg by Berggruen was disclosed you ought to be able to come up with the appropriate disclosure form rather than just a partisan defense. Go ahead.

Sotomayor is apparently using government-paid staff to forge her signatures in fraudulently “signed” copies of her books, including the 11,000 “sold” to MSU in connection with payment to her of $110,000 for the event. Seems to me I remember Newt Gingrich getting in ethics trouble over just such a scheme. What has SHE disclosed?

[Shamie Ervin iv]

Which blog, Artie? Summary, Judgment or? What's so right wing about his work?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This one. This white, male, bigot-hugging, racial slur-strewing one.

[Gandydancer]

So Sotomayor is an ethics-free scamming fraudster getting bribe money laundered through book publishers? Who cares… if she votes the way you like?

Wait, weren’t you one of the ones whining about Alito having gotten a free fishing trip a couple decades ago?

[not guilty]

Justice Sotomayor's conduct, as described in the AP story, is questionable -- no question about that. But stating it involved "bribe money," however, is simply a falsehood. See, McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 2355 (2016).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The obvious and likely inevitable solution is to establish enforceable, rules concerning ethical conduct for every federal judge, including Supreme Court justices.

[Shamie Ervin iv]

Judges usually violate the rules you're talking about. They almost uniformly refuse to recuse themselves when there are glaring conflicts of interests and their objectivity has evaporated. Remember Judge David Lanier from Tennessee? The judiciary climbed up trees backwards to protect him, and finally they gave in after Diane Sawyer blasted all of them for protecting a violent rapist who used his chambers to attack women.

Remember all those crooked judges in WV who leaped to defend Judge Louise Goldston as she augmented her judicial role with the executive and wielded the Sword of Damocles on male divorce spouses? (With the help of her burly bailiffs, of course.)

[Gandydancer]

From Wikipedia: "McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the appeal of former Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell's conviction under the Hobbs Act.... Anatabloc is a tobacco extract which the company Star Scientific was producing in Virginia. Virginia has been a tobacco-producing state. The governor held events promoting the company's product at his governor's mansion after receiving gifts from the CEO of the company....The jury found the McDonnells guilty of multiple counts of corruption... At issue on appeal was whether the definition of "official act" within the federal bribery statutes encompassed the actions for which McDonnell had been convicted... The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit unanimously affirmed the convictions of the McDonnells.... Chief Justice John Roberts authored the unanimous opinion.[2] McDonnell's conviction was vacated on the grounds that the meaning of "official act" does not include merely setting up a meeting, calling another public official, or hosting an event."

The relevance of this case of obvious corruption escaping punishment to Sotomayor's fraudulent activities is non-obvious. Nor do I anyway concede to the likes of Roberts the right to define bribery out of existence when that is exactly what occurred. You can go ahead and suck their collective dick if you want, but I am under no obligation to follow suit.

[David Nieporent]

The relevance of this case of obvious corruption escaping punishment to Sotomayor’s fraudulent activities is non-obvious.

The relevance is that it says that, legally, bribery must be connected to an official act to be bribery. And whether you like the decision or not, whether you respect the nine justices (not "the likes of Roberts") who joined it, it's controlling law.

[Gandydancer]

It is not in evidence that Sotomayor did not commit, or agree to commit, official acts in return for the bribe money lavished on her through MSU and her book publisher. You’re free to come up with other explanations for the apparently corrupt provision of that money (but that fraud was involved is obvious) just as I am free to reject the claims that Thomas did anything official for Crow and Alito anything official for the guy who paid for his fishing trip. Meanwhile the sauce I’ve seen applied here to the the ganders will continue to be liberally applied by me to the goose, so get over it.

[Armchair Lawyer]

This actually is a potentially large ethics issue.

The question here is, is Justice Sotomayor using government resources and government staff to assist in her private business?

No one says Sotomayor can't write, promote and sell a book. What she ethically should not be able to do however is use government resources to write, promote, and/or sell her book which is, in essence, her private (non-government) business.

If her government-paid staff are using their time to help promote her book, on the government's budget...that's a problem. If Sotomayor needs staff to promote her book, she needs to be paying them herself (or through her publisher). Having the government do it is a major issue.

[Sarcastr0]

This actually is a potentially large ethics issue.

You would think that. An ever shifting sense of perspective for right versus left actions is like your main trick.

Hint: when you use potentially and if that much, maybe wait a bit so you have something beyond heated speculation to offer. Especially when the Republican judges have worse stuff actually established.

[Jmaie]

I thought you disliked whataboutism ;<)

[Kazinski]

It’s not whataaboutism when Sarcastro does it.

It’s lookatwhattheotherguydid-ism. Which is a very different animal.

[Sarcastr0]

Oh I have said and do say Sotomayer did wrong and frankly should be ashamed.

AL is not only rocking a stark double standard but is trying to speculate himself into a scandal that as of yet does not exist. Which is bad and he should feel bad.

[JSinAZ]

It exists, but the motivations to make it an issue aren’t as pressing as those demanding the defenestration of the racially disloyal black man.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Flailing, disaffected clingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.

[Gandydancer]

Gaslightr0: “…I have said and do say Sotomayer did wrong and frankly should be ashamed.”

Where?

She should be convicted of defrauding anyone who bought what she represented to be a signed copy off her book and for defrauding the government in misdirecting the services of her government-paid minions to her benefit in that fraudulent enterprise. And impeached.

[Sarcastr0]

When one of you dumbasses first tried to make it into an ethics thing a week or so ago. I wasn’t the only liberal on here to note it was bad behavior either.

As for your fraud impeachment wank, you are a clown and a very unserious person.

[Gandydancer]

I said "should", not that she will. Biden can even appoint her replacement, so it's not nearly as unserious a proposition as the demanded resignations of Thomas and Alito.

Sotomayor's engaged serially in criminal fraud for personal gain in order to evade limits on her speaking fees ($110,000 from MSU alone, if the sweetheart deal/bribe through her publisher includes "promotional" copies in sufficient number) and has clearly misappropriated government funds to advance that fraudulent enterprise. You may not think this serious enough to justify her removal from the Court, but that's you. If I were in government security, wanted to do my job, and found you within the scope of it, I'd take this expression of your insouciance into account and keep a close eye on you.

[Sarcastr0]

No she shouldn’t be impeached. This is not great but also small potatoes and you know it. All your bloviating about bribery is made up.

You just want her to be impeached who cares why. This is why you are an unserious person.

Maybe don’t threaten my job, even hypothetically.

[Gandydancer]

It's your choice to display your indifference to corruption that gives good reason to keep an eye on you.

And, no, using government employees in furtherance of Sotomayor's "autographed copy" fraud is NOT "small potatoes". Such ingrained and repeated dishonesty is disqualifying.

[Gandydancer]

Baude has two copies of the same book supposedly signed by Sotomayor where the signatures don't match. It is also unbelievable that she signed 11,000 copies for MSU. Calling this "heated speculation" instead of evidence is risible. She's a crook.

[Mr. Bumble]

A corrupt Latina?

[Gandydancer]

Sure looks like it.

[Krayt]

This applies to all politicians, and has been going on for many decades.

Small potatoes: Using government offices, people, phone lines, copiers to do this. Phone lines doesn't even matter anymore as infinite long distance is in most plans now.

Major spuds: Sweetheart book deals with unusually high per book payments, companies buying thousands of books to shove in a warehouse, etc.

[Gandydancer]

Politicians use phone lines to sign “AUTOGRAPHED” BOOKS?

The books-to-a-warehouse scam (or getting them paid for but not bothering to deliver them) is a different issue.

As is signing bills remotely, which you are dragging in out of left field.