Corruption in the SCOTUS

Yeah? Pays to have friends in high places with inside information I guess.

Wait, is that illegal?

 

This kind of crap is why people don’t take accusations of corruption and foul play from Democrats seriously.

They treat their own very differently than they treat their opponents.

Ask yourself if any powerful Republican politician had a spouse who was a venture capitalist and investor, and was wildly to successful, if they would consider that completely normal with no appearance of impropriety.

These are the same people who think politicians shouldn’t be allowed (or at least be sequestered) sin securities trading. Now all of a sudden, we’re supposed to believe that despite the fact that it’s her husband they don’t talk, and despite the fact that he may have been successful before they were together, he (as well as Nancy) hasn’t financially benefitted from their relationship due to information he wouldn’t otherwise have had. If you actually believe that, you are absurdly naive.

Also, if the standard is “interest in the outcome,” I think everyone has an “interest” in a whole lot of SCOTUS outcomes. I have an interest in Dobbs, and I can’t even get pregnant.

 

We talking about Nancy and Paul or Ginni and Clarence?

 

I have a real problem with members of Congress trading stocks based on what would be considered insider information and that applies to members of both parties . That being said even if Pelosi did so the profits that she earned would be minuscule compared to the combined total net worth of her and Paul. By the way if you're so concerned about government officials benefiting from their positions how do you feel about Donald, Ivanka and especially Jared Kushner? And when I said Crow had an interest in SCOTUS decisions this is to what I was referring.
Report: Harlan Crow has a stake in 4 SCOTUS cases and Thomas hasn't recused

 

Isn’t political posts outlawed on this site?

 

Actually this particular board is specifically for political posts.

 

Proceed you political midnight riders

 

It’s not like there aren’t other wealthy members of Congress, like… how did Mitch McConnell get so filthy rich after so many years in politics? Anything mysterious there? Nor does it require being a “venture capitalist” to engage in insider trading based on congressional knowledge. All it takes is access to that knowledge and a trading account. Hell a person of modest means might be even more inclined to jump on an insider trade. That’s before you get into land deals and bridges to nowhere type corruption that actually use taxpayer funds (insider trading is more an issue because it disadvantages “everyone else” in the market, it’s not defrauding the taxpayer). All I know is on the stock trading issue, mostly only dems seem to at least put it on the table, and their attacks aren’t based in flimsy/nonsensical claims of “mysterious wealth”. It’s basically just the idea that if it would be illegal for anyone else to trade on insider info, Congress should be treated the same way for their “insider” knowledge and should either have passive only accounts or publicly report everything. Members of Congress should not have any hidden wealth, offshore accounts, or secrets deals. Who could disagree with that… except a corrupt politician on the take?

Obviously Mitt Romney is a similar figure as Paul Pelosi, and I don’t recall the dems loosely accusing him of “mysterious wealth”. I do recall them pushing his elitist attitude and his detachment to middle class issues - highlighting how many layoffs occurred in companies his firms acquired. I think all that stuff is fair game and smart politics, even if it’s part of capitalism. LBO’s do sometimes destroy companies rather than salvage them and those cases of raiding a company and leaving it saddled with debt should absolutely be discussed (esp when it causes companies to shutter, or for the govt to be on the hook for backing their pensions). If Pelosi did something similar in terms of LBO’s or engaged in insider trading it would be a legitimate discussion, instead we get “mysterious wealth” which is nothing but a low quality talking point.

 

Want to trade like Nancy? There’s an App for that.

https://www.thestreet.com/etffocus/blog/want-to-trade-stocks-like-nancy-pelosi-an-etf-for-that

Subversive Unusual Whales Democratic ETF (Ticker: NANC) will invest in equity securities purchased or sold by Democratic members of Congress and their spouses.

 

Nancy Pelosi is a member of Congress, a body that allowed its members to legally engage in insider trading for a long time. They're partisan hacks, and that was corrupt as hell. So I'm not sure why you'd want to make that comparison unless you're also admitting that Thomas is a partisan hack who was engaging in corrupt behavior, but he's allowed to get away with it too.

 

Trading on insider corporate information is illegal.. if you work in the finance/accounting department of a firm required to file 10-Q’s, if you are involved with any of those filings at a corporate level you will have access to the numbers before it’s released to the market via the filing. People who work in pharma are also subject to restrictions on clinical trial data. I’m sure there’s other industry examples. Anyone with that type information would be able to rig trades easily depending on if the result is a big miss or beat. To trade against shareholders is a clear breech of fiduciary duty. It’s 100% clear why that is illegal.

Congress insider information I suspect is rarely that obvious, nor do members of congress have fiduciary duty to shareholders. I wouldn’t have really even thought it a major problem outside of direct “conflict of interest” situations for particular committees (like if a committee is privy to a huge defense contract or oil leases or whatever). The scumbags who traded around covid briefings changed my mind that it needs to be locked down more fully. Although I already was of the mind members of Congress should have to fully disclose everything they do financially. Again, who is against this?

 

Insider trading is illegal.

I don’t know of any exception for Congresspeople in that regard.

I’m raising that because whenever we talk about DC corruption around here, we always start with the most important conservatives. It’s rarely the insignificant ones, or any liberals.

It’s always discussed when it’s convenient. And it’s always “contextualized” when it’s not. I will admit, I’m doing the same thing on this thread, but I’m not sure if most on this forum will be honest enough to admit they’re doing the same thing.

 

I do not think that there is an actual exception for members of Congress and I'm not an expert on securities law although members of Congress are not explicitly exempt its probably because they aren't defined as insiders within the meaning of the statute and knowledge that pending legislation which could have an impact on the price of securities will be enacted isn't considered inside information within the meaning of the statute.

 

Judicial ethics is not a one to one comparison with insider trading.

Judicial ethics include appearances of impropriety. In other words, things that may be perceived as shady by the public. There doesn’t need to be actual proof of some bribery or improper influence scheme to fall short of that ethical standard. It’s an extraordinarily high standard, which makes sense.

Insider trading implies actual proof of trading using insider knowledge.

Is there legal proof Paul Pelosi has relied on Nancy Pelosi’s connections, resources, and insider policy or corporate knowledge in some of his deals? Not that I know of.

Is that probably the case? Absolutely. And I’m pretty confident all it takes is a close look.

But we’re not supposed to live in a country that investigates people on fishing expeditions and hunches unless your name is Donald Trump or anybody linked to his administration.

 

If the whole purpose of insider trading laws is to preserve fiduciary duties from company insiders to shareholders, then why do they also apply to third parties with no relationship to the company itself, nor fiduciary duties to the company?

For the record, I think high level public officials should be allowed to be involved with securities trading, but they should be required to distance themselves from the day-to-day decision-making. For example, having a third party you don’t speak with very frequently handling the day-to-day. Perhaps even establish a minimum period between a trade request and actual processing of the request to prevent some sort of rushed pullout (or buy-in) based on a tip that some sort of big change or crisis was coming.

 

Members of Congress were able to do it freely for a long time. They passed a law in 2012 that was supposed to close the loophole, but it really hasn't done it.
Insider Trading Isn’t Illegal if You Are a Member of Congress – INSIDE COMPLIANCE

All I'm saying is that if you have to go to the political branch that most folks accept is pretty darn corrupt to justify what Thomas is doing, it doesn't speak well of him.

 

Thomas’s behavior certainly isn’t ideal here, I’m not saying that.

 

You just can't bring yourself to admit CT is wrong. He is corrupt. If Nancy is then lock her up to. You good with that. But you are dancing around so hard like you are playing political twister. Just say it. Clarence is a POS that broke way too many rules. But for some reason, after seeing so much evidence he is obviously corrupt you play the whataboutism card. Have a dash of self respect...just say it.

 

I'm not saying that either.

But judges/justices should try and put themselves in a position to avoid even the slightest bit of appearance of impropriety.

Ideally, you wouldn't even be in this position where people can question the motive behind these gifts, favors, etc.

I genuinely don't think Thomas cares in the slightest about how the public perceives him. He likes what he likes and who he likes. And love him or hate him, courts are built on credibility. Ideally, SCOTUS justices wouldn't care in the slightest about how the public perceives their individual judgments (they're not a democratic body for a reason), but they would care deeply about how the public perceives their professionalism, impartiality, and insulation from outside influences.

Does that mean he actually is corrupt or improperly influenced, I frankly just don't see the evidence of that. But judges are typically held to an even higher standard than that.