Posted on 01/30/2022 5:24:27 AM PST by EBH
A recent Wall Street Journal investigation found that over the last decade, 131 federal judges failed to recuse themselves in hundreds of cases that involved their own financial interests.
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts, in his year-end review of the federal judiciary, said the report’s findings indicate a “serious problem of inadequate ethics training,” especially for those judges who had numerous violations. The conflicts of interest primarily include judges hearing cases involving their or their families’ stock holdings, which ultimately tainted some 685 court cases.
Given the rising concerns that the federal judiciary is becoming increasingly politicized, the newspaper’s findings are deeply troubling, says Martha Davis, university distinguished professor of law at Northeastern, adding that the violations only “compound the lack of trust that the federal judiciary seems to be breeding.”
“What’s at stake here is a lot,” Davis says. “We have a judiciary for various reasons already losing the trust of the American people, and the evidence that federal judges are hearing cases that they have a direct financial interest in only makes things worse.”
One of the primary mechanisms for alerting the courts about potential conflicts is through software that screens for them. The computerized system itself was implemented after a 2006 Washington Post investigation discovered a rash of ethics violations in the federal courts.
But the more recent Wall Street Journal investigation found that the software isn’t foolproof, requiring more awareness from judges.
“Judges are expected to know themselves, and not to rely on some kind of mechanism or computer system” to catch these conflicts, Davis says. “And they’re supposed to be aware of what their own assets are.”
The Journal reports that some of the judges who hadn’t recused themselves in the cases blamed “flawed internal procedures,” including an instance in which a...
(Excerpt) Read more at news.northeastern.edu ...
131 Federal Judges Broke the Law by Hearing Cases Where They Had a Financial Interest
The judges failed to recuse themselves from 685 lawsuits from 2010 to 2018 involving firms in which they or their family held shares, a Wall Street Journal investigation found
https://www.wsj.com/articles/131-federal-judges-broke-the-law-by-hearing-cases-where-they-had-a-financial-interest-11632834421
If Roberts is touting it, I’m immediately suspicious of an Establishment purge.
What’s new. These judges Imbelieve may be appointees by people who,routinely rule on laws affecting potential investments they or family members are involved in
A leftwing judge has no ethics. He’s left wing and being left wing is all about rejecting ethics.
When rejecting ethics, he should consider the elimination of breathing
Dude! Why do you think there is a financial conflict? Best judges you can buy!
Ethics? Now? A little late to the party, Chief Justice Chucklehead! Can you say anything about cases not heard in the 2020 election scandals - either “not ripe”, or “too late for action”, or “no standing”? How about the corrupt and politicized FISA court that he oversees? Look in the mirror, Chucklehead!
I knew FReepers would have a good time with this.
Yes, the government is so far out of control no matter what we do in the next decade it really won’t matter. It will take 50 years of consistent local action to fix any of this.
And frankly, I just do not see the republican base being able to do it. We just don’t community organize to get things done. It is not in our makeup to work or live like that.
Federal “judges” suck. Most are crooks, sexual deviants or really fat mamas.
So if s judge owned an index fund holding all listed stocks he would never be able to rule on any corporation?
Really. If they want to make money in government, let them join Congress like other politicians.
“Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts, in his year-end review of the federal judiciary, said the report’s findings indicate a “serious problem of inadequate ethics training,””
What a clueless statement and an insult to the intelligence of anyone he is attempting to convince with this tripe. If you have no morals then no amount of training is going to give you any.
There. Fixed it.
No, Johnny, it reflects a lack of screening in law schools for morality minimums for applicants to be accepted. No decent human being would even need training to realize that ruling on anything that could affect your personal finances is inherently wrong. That training should come from the person's parents, elementary schools, and churches. By the time a young adult gets to law school their morals are set in place, and an additional 3-credit-hour course with a multiple choice pass/fail exam is not going to make a decent person out of anybody who would not immediately recuse themselves from the case.
Of course, we are talking about lawyers here.
“...inadequate ethics training...”
Riiiight.
Throw in some additional ethics training. That should solve the problem.
Don’t forget its mandated by the gurus of ethics - Congress!
Just wait until someone looks into the politicians finances as well as their secret accounts, trusts and foundations.
a 20 year prison sentence of hard labor should accompany every political election term and TERM LIMITS are a must.
^^^^^this.
I don’t think funds are a problem if they are a broad-based mutual fund.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.