To folks new here, I am fine with disagreement. If you are hateful or personally attack me or other commenters, though, I will freely, quickly, and eagerly block you.
What does Brett Kavanaugh think about all this? I hear he likes beer.
I suppose all of this needs to be documented for history. Nevertheless it often feels like our side goes to great lengths to demonstrate or prove the obvious, that we have a fascist movement running amok in this country that doesn't care about human rights, civil rights, democracy, ethics, the rule of law, truth, or any other decency.
Are we persuading anyone of anything? Serious question; I don't know. Or has everyone who is going to pick a side already picked one, and it's just fiddling while Rome burns?
We know what's happening. What's the plan of action for any of us to do anything about it? Because right now it's pretty clear to me we're losing the war.
I don't mean at all to pick on this article; it's just a general frustration of mine. It's like trying to prove Hitler is a bigot when what we need is to shut down Auschwitz. Everyone is doing the former because no one knows how to do the latter.
Folks we have a new fascist movement in this country and it’s not the side that has their panties in a bunch over a guy with an upside down flag (I can hear the “USA USA USA” chant through your internet connection) who sold a little bit of stock at a loss. LOL
Hahahaha. Robin the lib. Robin the flag defender. Robin, should we recriminalize desecrating the flag? Is your metamorphosis to pure authoritarian complete?
Who said we should criminalize desecrating the flag? Turning it was a protest of ideas, divesting was a protest of people—that is what especially sickens me.
Anyone watching the news might think the stock was likely to drop. He'd be an idiot to not sell. Unless he were playing politics and held the stock for "moral support".
Much as I hate Alito, I'm going to stay agnostic on this one. Alito seems to have been in tune with the anti-trans movement to recognize what the controversy would do to the stock. It doesn't really show any "insider" sort of trading unless he KNEW that Raichik’s post was forthcoming.
It might show a political decision lots of people make, to divest oneself of stocks where companies do something one doesn't agree with. But this wasn't really an in-your-face support of a reprehensible position that the flag incident was. Don't we all know that Alito, being who he is, has always been likely to vote against anything affirming LGBTQ rights, and particularly the T part?
right. Unless he directed his financial guy before the post went up. Does anyone really think Alito sat down at his computer and sold the stock himself?
The biggest problem I have with this as evidence of a need to recuse is that it is very borderline, knowing what we already know about Alito's views on these matters, and it diverts attention from the BIG issue caused by that flag. The last thing we need is a narrative of victimization broadcast by the right that interferes with the need for Congress to do SOMETHING about specifying when the need to recuse has teeth.
I don’t know where either of you got that this has anything to do with — or even raises questions about — insider trading. That is not the issue, at all.
"Much as I hate Alito, I'm going to stay agnostic on this one. Alito seems to have been in tune with the anti-trans movement to recognize what the controversy would do to the stock. It doesn't really show any 'insider' sort of trading unless he KNEW that Raichik’s post was forthcoming."
You're suggesting that's the issue that I raised, and it's not. The question is about recusal, specifically one of "bias or prejudice" and whether his "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
I apologize if it looks that way. I'm quite aware that the issue here isn't insider trading and that you didn't suggest it was. It wouldn't have even occurred to me to mention it if someone else hadn't. I don't remember who.
My actual disagreement with your post is stated in the second paragraph of the comment you commented on. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be aware of all his lapses and I was glad to see this one explained.
Chris, can you point us to your story on judges families making money off of fans of the prosecution of a defendant in his court? What about judges staff pressuring public institutions to purchase millions of dollars worth of their book? What about your story on judges owning “socially-responsible” (Democrat) funds?
Honestly, you should be embarrassed. Just own being a hypocritical partisan dork.
Chris is just pointing out that it is illegal and unethical to ever sell or buy anything which happens to coincide with anything the right wing is saying at the moment.
I would choose your next words wisely. If you use any of the words that I, a dirty right winger and enemy of the state, have used, then you will also be under suspicion, you see?
I would guess my words of choice are “vast overgeneralization” and “inability to distinguish.” Don’t know whether those words are USED by the dirty right. The concepts are certainly PRACTICED by them. (and yes, by the non-dirty-right, too, but in much less quantity).
Maybe the rest of the media is getting it wrong though? That would be in character. Your reporting is always excellent and very thorough. Which is not true of what gets published by all the mainstream outlets who are motivated by the need to turn a profit for shareholders.
Dylan Mulvaney's ad came out on April 1, also called April Fools Day. Alito sold his stock in August 5, months later. This was recognition that Budweiser was a bad investment.
Thank you for your ongoing diligence and attempt to hold SCOTUS accountable and in public view.
With each passing day I become sicker and sicker by the blatant disregard of law and ethics that SCOTUS, our elected and appointed officials are, ha, "mandated" to follow.
Having foresight in seeing the possibility of stocks tanking, is not the same as insider trading.
insider trading is when you sell or buy stock BEFORE any specific event is publicly announced that can increase or decrease that stock and thereby, your investment portfolio.
If I held a stock that I saw had great potential to take a nose-dive, I’d sell, too.
As to the opening half of your poem, yes, as to the market, anyone can do so. This wasn't about the market; it was about the additional ethical and recusal constraints placed on judges.
As to the second half, I cover the Supreme Court, so, surprise, I'm focused on them and other federal judges. But, that said, I am all for banning individual stock-trading by all federal elected and appointed officials.
Why all the handpicking on who is to be the target?
Pelosi is millionaire obvious as to why, career politician with huge track record of insider trading. Why are the likes of her never investigated? Why this one judge when all of them trade stocks? Why only a certain party when 100% all of them do it.
Problem remains to be media and journalists just like politicians have an agenda to fulfill. There is a target being reached. Usually the corruption will expose itself as why the investigations happen, who is funding them and what is the end goal and who does that outcome benefit.
This is strange business targeting of political opponents. We have already had seven solid years of the that with all the nonstop attacks on Trump. Clearly there are other politician in worse conditions than Trump EVER will be but none of that gets reported or investigated.
And that is where journalism, true journalism has failed like a sinking rock - no chance of surfacing of the truth, ever. Only particular people with particular crimes are sought.
To repeat myself: I predominantly cover the courts, so, that’s why I’m covering Alito.
Second, only two justices own *any* individual stocks. Roberts owns two, and Alito owns more than 20. So, no, “all of them” do not trade stocks, and you are proving why this story is newsworthy.
Apologies, all, for the influx of hate-posters.
To folks new here, I am fine with disagreement. If you are hateful or personally attack me or other commenters, though, I will freely, quickly, and eagerly block you.
Why are Justices allowed to own stocks???
(See also: Congress)
Congrats on getting picked up by so many other news sources on this story!
Anyone wonder how many of SCOTUS think the election was stolen???
We know it's at least two.
What does Brett Kavanaugh think about all this? I hear he likes beer.
I suppose all of this needs to be documented for history. Nevertheless it often feels like our side goes to great lengths to demonstrate or prove the obvious, that we have a fascist movement running amok in this country that doesn't care about human rights, civil rights, democracy, ethics, the rule of law, truth, or any other decency.
Are we persuading anyone of anything? Serious question; I don't know. Or has everyone who is going to pick a side already picked one, and it's just fiddling while Rome burns?
We know what's happening. What's the plan of action for any of us to do anything about it? Because right now it's pretty clear to me we're losing the war.
I don't mean at all to pick on this article; it's just a general frustration of mine. It's like trying to prove Hitler is a bigot when what we need is to shut down Auschwitz. Everyone is doing the former because no one knows how to do the latter.
Ooh, a high school kid liked beer. Sick burn!
Kavanaugh is rich enough now to drink good beer. The stuff made by big beer conglomerates is generally not good.
Folks we have a new fascist movement in this country and it’s not the side that has their panties in a bunch over a guy with an upside down flag (I can hear the “USA USA USA” chant through your internet connection) who sold a little bit of stock at a loss. LOL
He is the opposite of what a Supreme Court Justice should be.
This literally turned my stomach, even more than the flag.
Hahahaha. Robin the lib. Robin the flag defender. Robin, should we recriminalize desecrating the flag? Is your metamorphosis to pure authoritarian complete?
Who said we should criminalize desecrating the flag? Turning it was a protest of ideas, divesting was a protest of people—that is what especially sickens me.
Good old Sam Alito. Not an
ounce of bias in this
fruitcake.
The most narrow minded man
on the court!
Anyone watching the news might think the stock was likely to drop. He'd be an idiot to not sell. Unless he were playing politics and held the stock for "moral support".
Much as I hate Alito, I'm going to stay agnostic on this one. Alito seems to have been in tune with the anti-trans movement to recognize what the controversy would do to the stock. It doesn't really show any "insider" sort of trading unless he KNEW that Raichik’s post was forthcoming.
It might show a political decision lots of people make, to divest oneself of stocks where companies do something one doesn't agree with. But this wasn't really an in-your-face support of a reprehensible position that the flag incident was. Don't we all know that Alito, being who he is, has always been likely to vote against anything affirming LGBTQ rights, and particularly the T part?
Even if he knew the post was going up, it wouldn't be insider trading if he waited until after the information was made public.
right. Unless he directed his financial guy before the post went up. Does anyone really think Alito sat down at his computer and sold the stock himself?
The biggest problem I have with this as evidence of a need to recuse is that it is very borderline, knowing what we already know about Alito's views on these matters, and it diverts attention from the BIG issue caused by that flag. The last thing we need is a narrative of victimization broadcast by the right that interferes with the need for Congress to do SOMETHING about specifying when the need to recuse has teeth.
I don’t know where either of you got that this has anything to do with — or even raises questions about — insider trading. That is not the issue, at all.
it was mentioned in a comment. That's what I at least was responding to.
That's not what this suggests:
"Much as I hate Alito, I'm going to stay agnostic on this one. Alito seems to have been in tune with the anti-trans movement to recognize what the controversy would do to the stock. It doesn't really show any 'insider' sort of trading unless he KNEW that Raichik’s post was forthcoming."
You're suggesting that's the issue that I raised, and it's not. The question is about recusal, specifically one of "bias or prejudice" and whether his "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
I apologize if it looks that way. I'm quite aware that the issue here isn't insider trading and that you didn't suggest it was. It wouldn't have even occurred to me to mention it if someone else hadn't. I don't remember who.
My actual disagreement with your post is stated in the second paragraph of the comment you commented on. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be aware of all his lapses and I was glad to see this one explained.
Chris, can you point us to your story on judges families making money off of fans of the prosecution of a defendant in his court? What about judges staff pressuring public institutions to purchase millions of dollars worth of their book? What about your story on judges owning “socially-responsible” (Democrat) funds?
Honestly, you should be embarrassed. Just own being a hypocritical partisan dork.
Chris is just pointing out that it is illegal and unethical to ever sell or buy anything which happens to coincide with anything the right wing is saying at the moment.
I would choose your next words wisely. If you use any of the words that I, a dirty right winger and enemy of the state, have used, then you will also be under suspicion, you see?
I would guess my words of choice are “vast overgeneralization” and “inability to distinguish.” Don’t know whether those words are USED by the dirty right. The concepts are certainly PRACTICED by them. (and yes, by the non-dirty-right, too, but in much less quantity).
Maybe the rest of the media is getting it wrong though? That would be in character. Your reporting is always excellent and very thorough. Which is not true of what gets published by all the mainstream outlets who are motivated by the need to turn a profit for shareholders.
He sold the stock to Kavanaugh!
Dylan Mulvaney's ad came out on April 1, also called April Fools Day. Alito sold his stock in August 5, months later. This was recognition that Budweiser was a bad investment.
Law Dork,
Thank you for your ongoing diligence and attempt to hold SCOTUS accountable and in public view.
With each passing day I become sicker and sicker by the blatant disregard of law and ethics that SCOTUS, our elected and appointed officials are, ha, "mandated" to follow.
Having foresight in seeing the possibility of stocks tanking, is not the same as insider trading.
insider trading is when you sell or buy stock BEFORE any specific event is publicly announced that can increase or decrease that stock and thereby, your investment portfolio.
If I held a stock that I saw had great potential to take a nose-dive, I’d sell, too.
"Man sells stock as price falls, reinvests in competitor as price rises. Also, his wife has political views."
That's it folks.
Open market, anyone can buy and sell at will for any given reason.
This is trying to find something to latch onto for further demonizing.
Left is looking for whatever they can to create more divisions.
It is a free market in a free country.
Questions should also apply to all politicians.
How do all politicians turn millionaires in minimum two terms?
Answer: Stocks and feeding of information to them at the right time by the right people.
Most all politicians are in on the take, they are in the perfect posture for it.
As to the opening half of your poem, yes, as to the market, anyone can do so. This wasn't about the market; it was about the additional ethical and recusal constraints placed on judges.
As to the second half, I cover the Supreme Court, so, surprise, I'm focused on them and other federal judges. But, that said, I am all for banning individual stock-trading by all federal elected and appointed officials.
Why all the handpicking on who is to be the target?
Pelosi is millionaire obvious as to why, career politician with huge track record of insider trading. Why are the likes of her never investigated? Why this one judge when all of them trade stocks? Why only a certain party when 100% all of them do it.
Problem remains to be media and journalists just like politicians have an agenda to fulfill. There is a target being reached. Usually the corruption will expose itself as why the investigations happen, who is funding them and what is the end goal and who does that outcome benefit.
This is strange business targeting of political opponents. We have already had seven solid years of the that with all the nonstop attacks on Trump. Clearly there are other politician in worse conditions than Trump EVER will be but none of that gets reported or investigated.
And that is where journalism, true journalism has failed like a sinking rock - no chance of surfacing of the truth, ever. Only particular people with particular crimes are sought.
To repeat myself: I predominantly cover the courts, so, that’s why I’m covering Alito.
Second, only two justices own *any* individual stocks. Roberts owns two, and Alito owns more than 20. So, no, “all of them” do not trade stocks, and you are proving why this story is newsworthy.
Thank you.