Latest Breaking News

Jesus Malverde

(10,274 posts) Mon Apr 28, 2014, 04:15 AM Apr 2014

Report: Appeals Court Judges Violated Ethics Laws

Last edited Mon Apr 28, 2014, 04:45 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: AP

More than a dozen federal appeals court judges have violated federal conflict-of-interest laws over the past three years, throwing into doubt decisions in 26 cases, according to an analysis from a watchdog group.

The Center for Public Integrity, in a report being released Monday, found 24 cases in which judges ruled despite owning stock in a company appearing before them. In two other cases, the judges had financial ties to law firms representing one of the parties.

When informed of the conflicts, all 16 judges sent letters to the parties involved in the cases, disclosing the violations. Several judges said their failure to withdraw from the cases was an oversight, the report said. Some of the judges had conflicts in more than one case.

Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/report-appeals-court-judges-violated-ethics-laws

24 cases in which judges ruled despite owning stock in a company appearing before them

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Report: Appeals Court Judges Violated Ethics Laws (Original Post) Jesus Malverde Apr 2014 OP

At least there are rules governing rpannier Apr 2014 #1

Glad I'm not a Justice, I'd be screwed Warpy Apr 2014 #2

K&R DeSwiss Apr 2014 #3

Big Story's "permalink": alp227 Apr 2014 #4

Thanks for the link. Jesus Malverde Apr 2014 #5

rpannier

(24,329 posts)

1. At least there are rules governing

Reply to Jesus Malverde (Original post)

Mon Apr 28, 2014, 04:23 AM

Apr 2014

Each SCOTUS judge decide if there is a conflict of interest for himself/herself.

Warpy

(111,266 posts)

2. Glad I'm not a Justice, I'd be screwed

Reply to Jesus Malverde (Original post)

Mon Apr 28, 2014, 04:24 AM

Apr 2014

My dad was a big believer in diversifying his portfolio, one of those lessons from the Depression when people who owned only one thing lost everything first. People who owned a little of this and that stood a better chance of salvaging something out of the ruins.

So I've got piddling little amounts of all sorts of stuff. While I find it laughable that I couldn't possibly rule against any company whose stock I owned, I do agree that if Justices have major positions in any company, they need to recuse themselves to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest.

If they've got a hundred shares of this and that, it's not that big a deal and I'd hate to lose good judges over it.

<plink, plink>