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.
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!
And it is not just Alito and Roberts. Accepting expenses “gifts” from people with an interest in the Court’s actions is as compromising as stock ownership.
And let’s not forget Justice Thomas! His acceptance of four million plus seems to have led to Snyder v. U. S., the “gratuity” case. The Roberts court excoriated the Biden Administration, but gives itself a free pass.
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.
Secretary Bessent Has Repeatedly Refused to Give Epstein Bank Records to Senate Investigators, Impeding Senator Wyden’s Follow-The-Money Investigation. Bessent is complicit in protecting perpetrators of global child rape.
Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, has been digging into Mr. Epstein’s financial network for the past 3 years
The single largest suspicious activity report (SARS) reviewed by the congressional team was filed in late 2019 by JPMorgan for $1.1 billion. The report covered 4,700 transactions dating to 2003, including payments to women from Belarus, Russia and Turkmenistan.
Many of Mr. Epstein’s victims included young women from Eastern European countries.
The next largest was by Deutsche Bank for about $400 million, followed by Bank of New York Mellon for $378 million and then Bank of America, which filed reports on Mr. Black’s payments to Mr. Epstein. In 2023, JPMorgan paid $290 Million to Mr. Epstein’s victims and Deutsche paid $75 million to settle lawsuits that claimed the banks ignored red flags about potential sex trafficking.
Thanks for the clarification on what's happening with the stock market rule. Agree: justices should divest of individual stocks. We can add this to the effort to expand the court to 27 justices.
Both removing the gay pride flag as well as removing the display about Black slavery in Philadelphia are such extreme BS from this admin. Yet more lawsuits the Trump admin loses, but we shouldn't have to spend our time fighting our government for its blatant bigotry.
And we wouldn't have to if more of the MSM would note these actions as outright bigotry.
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.
A little late with reply due to travel, but I’ll explain my thought and then move on.
The financial disclosure system exists independent of any judicial ethics concerns. In fact, there’s much that can be improved upon. Because the financial disclosure system is a good thing, courts should implement policies to avoid post-cert recusals—which, for me, are a big deal. There’s a good argument that lower courts should implement similar procedures.
This system does not solve issues relating to recusals at the cert stage. But, for me, unless there is a recurring problem where justices are unable to address a legal issue at all (due to a recusals) I don’t view cert recusals as raising the same problems.
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!
I love Krugman's new term!
Chief Justice Roberts: Ethics, schmethics—show me the money!
And it is not just Alito and Roberts. Accepting expenses “gifts” from people with an interest in the Court’s actions is as compromising as stock ownership.
And let’s not forget Justice Thomas! His acceptance of four million plus seems to have led to Snyder v. U. S., the “gratuity” case. The Roberts court excoriated the Biden Administration, but gives itself a free pass.
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.
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)_/¯
This is correct.
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.
Corruption: the chief Justice who refuses to have or enforce ethics!
The Epstein bank records must be released
Secretary Bessent Has Repeatedly Refused to Give Epstein Bank Records to Senate Investigators, Impeding Senator Wyden’s Follow-The-Money Investigation. Bessent is complicit in protecting perpetrators of global child rape.
Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, has been digging into Mr. Epstein’s financial network for the past 3 years
The single largest suspicious activity report (SARS) reviewed by the congressional team was filed in late 2019 by JPMorgan for $1.1 billion. The report covered 4,700 transactions dating to 2003, including payments to women from Belarus, Russia and Turkmenistan.
Many of Mr. Epstein’s victims included young women from Eastern European countries.
The next largest was by Deutsche Bank for about $400 million, followed by Bank of New York Mellon for $378 million and then Bank of America, which filed reports on Mr. Black’s payments to Mr. Epstein. In 2023, JPMorgan paid $290 Million to Mr. Epstein’s victims and Deutsche paid $75 million to settle lawsuits that claimed the banks ignored red flags about potential sex trafficking.
NYT 7/19/2025
Thanks for the clarification on what's happening with the stock market rule. Agree: justices should divest of individual stocks. We can add this to the effort to expand the court to 27 justices.
Both removing the gay pride flag as well as removing the display about Black slavery in Philadelphia are such extreme BS from this admin. Yet more lawsuits the Trump admin loses, but we shouldn't have to spend our time fighting our government for its blatant bigotry.
And we wouldn't have to if more of the MSM would note these actions as outright bigotry.
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.
A little late with reply due to travel, but I’ll explain my thought and then move on.
The financial disclosure system exists independent of any judicial ethics concerns. In fact, there’s much that can be improved upon. Because the financial disclosure system is a good thing, courts should implement policies to avoid post-cert recusals—which, for me, are a big deal. There’s a good argument that lower courts should implement similar procedures.
This system does not solve issues relating to recusals at the cert stage. But, for me, unless there is a recurring problem where justices are unable to address a legal issue at all (due to a recusals) I don’t view cert recusals as raising the same problems.
❣️🎯 Thanks Chris Geidner..
https://bsky.app/profile/kenaiseasky.bsky.social/post/3mfbjqjhoe22n
Thank you, Mr. Geidner.
They both need to resign if they can’t do their job