The U.S. Supreme Court Is Full of Daytraders

I had noticed that Supreme Court justices were more frequently recusing themselves from cases, but it took yesterday's Washington Post to put it in context. It's their many investments that are causing the problem. I should have known that spending all that time sitting around between cases would turns Roberts and his merry crew into daytraders:

The court said yesterday that it could not raise a quorum to consider review of a wide-ranging class-action lawsuit that accuses more than 50 U.S. businesses of helping South Africa's former apartheid regime.

According to the court, only five of the nine justices could hear the case, and six are needed for a quorum. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Samuel A. Alito Jr. have holdings in some of the companies named in the suit. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's son works for another, Credit Suisse Group. He has recused himself in previous cases that involved the firm.

The case at hand is unusual, but recusals by the justices are becoming more common as the court's docket includes an increasing number of business cases.

Roberts's investments in Pfizer kept him out of a recent case involving the drug Rezulin. The eight remaining justices announced they were evenly split, which means the lower court ruling was affirmed without an opinion from the court.

Breyer sat out what was considered the court's most important business case of the term, concerning investor lawsuits. Roberts was involved only because he took action to get back into the case -- probably selling stock -- after announcing his recusal. Alito's holdings in Exxon mean eight justices will decide the decades-long punitive damages lawsuit over the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

Somewhat seriously, while this is amusing, the deeper issue is that business cases are tough to get to the Supreme Court at the best of times. If the result increasingly is inconclusive because so many Supremes can't actually hear the case, then that is a worrisome outcome.

Comments

[tuj]

Well there's a simple solution: when you accept the responsibility of become a justice, you must also accept that your assets should be placed in a blind trust. As a SCOTUS justice, you have the highest responsibility to the people of the US, more-so than even the President since your decisions will be far-reaching and your appointment is for life. Therefore all justices should make accommodations to keep their financial affairs out of the court.

[Mr. Wynn]

I tend to agree with tuj on this though almost everyone who is in a job in gov't probably owns some mutual funds and there are so many stocks in these funds that the fund investor may have no idea that he is an owner of this or that equity. It would go beyond the SCOTUS to every department in the Federal Government. Justice, Energy, Defense, Interior, EPA, you name it, most of these people's pensions are invested in a myriad of diverse stocks. Where do we draw the line? I'm not disagreeing, I'm just poiinting out the difficulties in trying to ensure fairness and impartiality.

[tuj]

Well the question of the 'line' is a good one, but there is one very clear one, and that is when we reach the point where the SCOTUS can no longer hear cases because of the number of recusals. We specifically make our judges be at least officially non-partisan. In today's world, can we argue that economic interests are no less partisan? Clearly an issue like drilling in ANWR or the like, that carries significant financial implications for one party involved, brings to the table the issue of economic partisanship.

We'll have to accept that our Fed. official do indeed make investments, and its the right of every American to do so, although I would sincerely hope that these agencies do their best to prevent trading on policy (or policy decisions to favor their trading). But at least at the highest levels, we must do something. The SCOTUS is the last line in resolving our most difficult legal (and really social) issues, and if they become so entangled as to no longer be able to objectively rule on cases, they are irrelevant.

The free market has given us politicians in the pockets of corporations, and not to fault them entirely; campaigns are freakin' expensive. But for our justices to get monetary lap dances for their opinion; its a disgusting mark on the court. Might as well just let Anton take over...

[sivere]

The Fed is full of day dreamers:

TakebackTheFed.com