A while back I noted that Justice Alito had to recuse himself from the Exxon-Valdez damages case because of his stock ownership of Exxon.
I would think during the vetting process a nominee would be advised to sell stocks or at least put them in a blind trust. Also, it’s not exactly a recent development, this Exxon Valdez case. Doesn’t the court have pretty good visibility into the cases that are likely headed their way?
It seems so obvious, you make it to the highest court in the land, you should have to invest either in mutual funds or some kind of blind trust. In this litigious society, big business is constantly being sued and taken to court. The chances of cases impacting individual stock holdings seems fairly substantial. According to the Washington Post, it is,
Investment Conflicts for High Court
Personal Holdings Prevent Justices From Hearing Case
Supreme Court justices’ personal investments are making it more difficult for the court to do business.
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.
Supreme Court appointments will be a major focus of the fall campaign. The difference between the kind of candidate McCain would nominate and the kind Obama would is striking.
“My nominees will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power, and clear limits to the scope of federal power.”
Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a statement.
“Barack Obama has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice, and what’s truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves.”
Perhaps we can take a time out from the partisan hysteria that is sure to result from the next nominee and address this issue of stock ownership and conflicts. I’m sure that is asking too much. Isn’t this one bipartisan point people should be able to agree on? These conflicts are easy enough to avoid. Why they are allowed to stand is beyond me.