Skip to content

Yet another Republican Supreme Court justice failed to report a property sale

Oh come on:

For nearly two years beginning in 2015, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch sought a buyer for a 40-acre tract of property he co-owned in rural Granby, Colo.

Nine days after he was confirmed by the Senate for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, the then-circuit court judge got one: The chief executive of Greenberg Traurig, one of the nation’s biggest law firms with a robust practice before the high court.

....Gorsuch did not disclose the identity of the purchaser. That box was left blank. Since then, Greenberg Traurig has been involved in at least 22 cases before or presented to the court, according to a POLITICO review of the court’s docket.

I hardly need to add that Gorsuch hasn't recused himself from cases involving Greenberg Traurig. Why would he? Republican Supreme Court justices appear to consider themselves above the law, and in practice it turns out that they are.

22 thoughts on “Yet another Republican Supreme Court justice failed to report a property sale

    1. Eve

      Google paid 99 dollars an hour on the internet. Everything I did was basic Οnline w0rk from comfort at hΟme for 5-7 hours per day that I g0t from this office I f0und over the web and they paid me 100 dollars each hour. For more details visit
      this article... https://createmaxwealth.blogspot.com

  1. Joseph Harbin

    Thomas, we know.
    Gorsuch, we're learning about.
    Kavanaugh, we have every reason to suspect.

    That's 3 of 6 GOP-appointed justices.

    The court needs reform. Next time Dems have the chance, they need to do something about it.

    1. aldoushickman

      "Kavanaugh, we have every reason to suspect."

      Kavanaugh has has some strange vanishing debts, and has seemed to live the life of a lower-upper class household on the upper middle class salary of a judge.

      Buuuuut, he also has very wealthy parents. So it's likely he's been getting help from Daddy, and that the throughline of his life of being a spoiled fratboy is probably more likely than getting bribes-in-all-but-name like Thomas or Gorsuch.

      I wouldn't rule it out, though. The man does seem to ooze entitlement, which isn't a great trait for avoiding ethical entanglements/impairments.

    2. HokieAnnie

      And Chief Justice Robert's wife is a headhunter for law firms with business before the courts, I think Barret's spouse has a problematic job too.

  2. gVOR08

    There was never any reason to think Thomas was unique. They all see the same incentives and constraints. The only difference is the liberal justices probably have a smaller pool of multi-millionaires to work with.

    1. KawSunflower

      You think that the Federalist Society appointees feel any constraints? They just didn't reckon on ProPublica or Politico.

      And I shouldn't assume anything, either, but I doubt that the more liberal members of SCOTUS would attract the moneyed corrupters - hopefully because they are perceived (& are) less susceptible to such offers. I'm not naive, but I really don't think that there are likely as many Democrats apt to be open to influence, let alone outright bribery, as the people we now call Republicans.

    2. kahner

      certainly possible the liberals justices are just as corrupt, but thus far, the evidence at SCOTUS in federal government at large belie that kind of simplistic both-sidism contention.

    3. cephalopod

      I wouldn't be surprised if there is less corruption among the liberal justices.Liberal voters care about corruption more, which means donors, politicians, and judges on the left have more to lose reputationally if they are caught.

  3. kahner

    how long will the liberal justices (and chief justice) stay silent? or perhaps some or all of them are guilty of the same behavior.

    1. Coby Beck

      I'm sure there are some pretty strong institutional disincentives for publicly criticizing your fellow justices. But Roberts as Chief Justice certainly has the right if not the obligation to comment publicly in some way.

  4. jphillips

    I don't think it's obvious that that would have to be disclosed. The form calls for disclosure in the event of a private sale - that suggests it's really for the odd situation where a block of publicly traded stock is sold in a private transaction rather than the normal public market, rather than for something like real estate where there is no public market.

    1. Austin

      In the future, JPhillips, when you whore yourself out so shamelessly for such obviously corrupt people, you should make sure you too also get something of benefit. Why suck all the Republican judges’ dicks for free when you could be sucking them off on Fox News, OAN, Newsmax or the like for big bucks?

    2. TheMelancholyDonkey

      Note that it is illegal to sell off the exchange any security that is traded on an exchange. So, that is not what the form is about.

  5. Heysus

    Apparently being a Supreme is matched by being god. No rules apply. Pathetic. No wonder this country is running mad.

  6. Cycledoc

    Years ago when I worked for a government agency the rule was to avoid even the appearance of a conflict. We couldn’t accept a lunch from someone who had dealings with the government..

    The conservative Supremes insouciance and above it all attitude seems related directly to it’s corporations as citizens and money is speech rulings. Apparently they are as open to bribery as our congress and it’s all legal in their minds.

  7. kaleberg

    Maybe we need to set up a Go Fund Me to raise money to outbid those on the other side? We've established that there are Supreme Court justices who offer their decisions in one's favor for a price. As the joke goes, we understand their morals. Now, it's just about price.

Comments are closed.