Roberts and Alito are the only two justices who own individual stocks. Also: A new lawsuit challenges the Trump admin's removal of the Pride flag at the Stonewall Monument.
The Supreme Court’s change to subpoena rules isn’t just procedural — it shifts power. Expanding where cases can be brought favors those with resources, not fairness. Democracies rely on predictable rules, and quietly rewriting them reshapes leverage more than headlines suggest.
Paul Krugman, in his post today, coined a new term for our form of government: a "Quackistocracy"; it's a form of Kakistocracy (worst of the worst) but with a bunch of ideological quacks. Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh all fall right in line with this new term. Krugman should win the Webster's Dictionary gold medal for best new word (defeating Trump's "equalize"; a word that's been in use since 1599). Quack!
This attack on stock ticker symbols is pretty off-base.
JEFS, the financial reporting system, used by judicial employees encourages reporting through stock ticker symbols for those assets. Requiring parties to do so will probably make cross-checking JEFS easier. The Justices have most likely delegated an accountant or financial advisor to fill in all trades for periodic reporting. I suspect this rule change is to make it easier to note conflicts when justices comply with their periodic reporting.
Source: I am a judicial employee (not a judge) that is required to comply with financial disclosure reports.
The Supreme Court’s change to subpoena rules isn’t just procedural — it shifts power. Expanding where cases can be brought favors those with resources, not fairness. Democracies rely on predictable rules, and quietly rewriting them reshapes leverage more than headlines suggest.
We're talking about the Supreme Court rules here, not the proposed federal rule changes.
Paul Krugman, in his post today, coined a new term for our form of government: a "Quackistocracy"; it's a form of Kakistocracy (worst of the worst) but with a bunch of ideological quacks. Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh all fall right in line with this new term. Krugman should win the Webster's Dictionary gold medal for best new word (defeating Trump's "equalize"; a word that's been in use since 1599). Quack!
Chief Justice Roberts: Ethics, schmethics—show me the money!
I hope some reporter asks Roberts about this at his next presser.
Oh, wait,…..
HAHAHAHAHAHAH
Those with money just want more, whether it’s ethical or not. Ugh.
I disagree about the scrivener's error.
What? How am I possibly wrong there?
OR, they must remove the first two and leave only the third.
Yes, I think this is the answer.
I added an update after looking through the rest of the rules. I still think it is sloppy, but it might have been intentional. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
There are four methods for filing; the "or" is used before each of the last three listed.
Oh, I see what you’re saying. I think the “or” before two needs to be removed as well.
Do you think the “or” is a Van-Halen-brown-M&M’s test…or just plain sloppiness??
This attack on stock ticker symbols is pretty off-base.
JEFS, the financial reporting system, used by judicial employees encourages reporting through stock ticker symbols for those assets. Requiring parties to do so will probably make cross-checking JEFS easier. The Justices have most likely delegated an accountant or financial advisor to fill in all trades for periodic reporting. I suspect this rule change is to make it easier to note conflicts when justices comply with their periodic reporting.
Source: I am a judicial employee (not a judge) that is required to comply with financial disclosure reports.
If the justices did not hold individual stocks, none of what you just wrote would need to happen. That is the point.