I'm not comfortable with a Justice who takes his moral cues from Kid Rock.
this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
317 points (95.7% liked)
politics
19231 readers
3655 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
In what world would it ever be ok for a Supreme Court justice to buy and sell individual stocks?
Totally agree. This is not exactly a good example in impropriety but I don't see why holding office should not restrict holders investments to broad total market index funds and bond funds.
The justification people use is that allowing them to profit through "normal/legal" channels prevents them from taking bribes or seeking other forms of income.
Absolutely disgusting and boils down to the same thing. Very effective at preventing corruption too (/s). A normal person would be jailed.
Edit: Some words.
allowing them to profit through “normal/legal” channels prevents them from taking bribes or seeking other forms of income.
This doesn't seem to have worked. Thomas and Alito are the glaring examples, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that they all take bribes of one form or another, whether intentionally or unintentionally because their actions bear no personal consequences other than enrichment.
Correct, it doesn't work. Which is why the justification is stupid and there should be stricture regulations to prevent conflict of interest.
Unless you're Thomas and can do both.
government officials and their families should be barred from holding stocks, ffs
I'm with you, but that has pretty much nothing to do with this.
Yeah he didn't have any insider knowledge, just seeing the backlash and reacting accordingly.
I think there is more nuance to it than this. Certain government officials who are in sensitive positions should be barred from holding stocks except through a blind trust, an index fund, a mutual fund, or some other vehicle that they can't directly control or influence. Those "certain government officials" should include members of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches who tend to be privy to information that would, if acted upon, constitute insider trading. This would include policy-makers as well as those around the policy-makers whose knowledge would create a conflict of interest.
That is all to say, I don't think that someone working in government IT, doing wildlife research, or doing HR work for a government agency should be required to divest from their stock portfolios. That should be limited to people whose jobs create an inherent conflict of interest.
government officials and their families should be barred from holding individual stocks
Why not all stocks? Worried they might become empoverished on those salaries?
Yes, because government pensions have been replaced with essentially a 401k. You would force them to invest only in real estate or individual businesses, which would be much easier to hide bribes.
Oh Justice Alito has quite the retirement ahead of him, guaranteed salary for life https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/371
Real estate as an investment should be outlawed, and operating a business as a government official is already dissuaded, and should also be outlawed. They make enough money.
That's a recipe for more bribes, not less. Investments need to be disclosed. Gifts are subject to less scrutiny, as we've seen.
This just isnt reality. In America, government officials can and do invest tons of money while in office, compared to officials in other countries. And also in America, government officials take tons of money from bribes, compared to officials in other countries. The way it actually works is government officials take all the money they can get away with. They take their big salary, they take their investment income, and even then they are not dissuaded in the slightest from taking bribes, its still more money for them. The limiting factor is what they can get away with. So you crack down on what they can legally acquire, you scrutinize their income and spending, you prosecute violations. Their salaries are plenty to live comfortably already.
in America, government officials take tons of money from bribes, compared to officials in other countries
I assume you have sources for that. List them.
its kind of hard to look up, because looking up lobbying expenses by country tends to pull up how much other countries are bribing US officials https://www.opensecrets.org/fara
I think it's a pretty uniquely American thing.
I mean since we're speculating on rules, they could easily expand an existing pension program
That's not going to happen because they don't have the experience to manage a pension fund. It doesn't manage itself, so they'll have to pay someone to manage it.
Do you want Goldman Sachs to get their hands on a pension fund for the US Government? Does that sound like a good idea?
Not seeing a problem here.
"Justice Sam Alito sold at least some of his stock in Anheuser-Busch and bought stock in Molson Coors on Monday, August 14, 2023."
The partnership with Mulvaney and the fake outrage began on April 1st:
https://people.com/bud-light-controversy-everything-to-know-7547159
On April 6, 2023, the Anheuser-Busch stock price was $66.34.
By June 2nd, it had dropped more than $10 to $54.85.
When Alito sold, it had recovered to $56.30.
By October, it would hit $52.83.
He probably should have held since it's $66.84 as of right now.
But this doesn't appear to be a result of any kind of insider trading or anything. If that were the case, he would have made the trade in early April when the fake outrage was starting.
As long as Anheuser-Busch, or a competitor doesn't have a case before the court, I'm OK with this.
Thanks for the context. I'm not sure why you're being downvoted by some people. Given the timing, I don't see that this either constitutes insider trading or implies prejudice (even if he is prejudiced). I do wonder, though, if something happened in the news cycle around August 14th that might have prompted his sale at that point. I don't trust Alito to do anything in good faith around the subject of trans rights.
Oh, I don't trust him either, I just don't see anything overtly corrupt in this trade.
He was losing money on his stock, it recovered slightly, so he sold. I've done the same thing.
Some folks in the thread think Justices shouldn't own stock at all, I think it's fine so long as the companies don't have business before the court.
Read the rest of this thread. Pretty much every other top comment is about whether they should be able to hold stocks at all. They didn't read the article, assumed it was something they could throw onto the pile of reasons they hate alito, so anything that calls that into question must be democratically banned.
The question is whether this indicates he was taking part in the boycott, not whether he was insider trading.
But ultimately I agree, the fact that there is a public boycott against them that looks like it has some legitimate legs is going to cause a lot of people to sell the stock, whether they agree with the boycott or not.
Considering the furor started 4 months before he sold, I don't think it matters if he was taking part in the boycott or not.
It doesn't SOUND like he sold all his holdings in the stock either, just a partial amount that he diversified into a Nazi beer company. ;)
/jk. Coors is called "Nazi beer" because the founder was named "Adolph".
The flag flying upside down outside his house is blatantly a violation.
Him selling stock in a company that has a boycott against it doesn't, at all, strike me as a being part of the boycott.
Alito opposed gay marriage and entered a solo dissent(Obergefell v. Hodges).
It's no stretch of the imagination to believe he would be part of anti-LGBT activism and to harbor such beliefs.
There is a big difference between it being easy to believe he would be, and something being evidence that he is.
I don't think they should be able to trade stocks at all and I'm sure the guy is an asshole and is on the wrong side of the trans issue. Given that, would it not be reasonable to expect the stock to dip during that period and cut your losses? This seems like shaky ground to go after him on. Especially if he didn't sell all of it.
Ethics guidelines aren't supposed to just prevent conflicts of interest, they are supposed to prevent the appearance of a conflict. What you suggest is perfectly reasonable for someone who is not in a position where their day job can move the stock market. I'm surprised he didn't put his holdings in a blind trust. It seems the prudent thing to do.
I already said I don't think they should be allowed to trade stocks at all. My point is what he did doesn't necessarily point to him participating in the boycott beyond acknowledging that "oh a bunch of people are pissed at better dump that before it bottoms out and maybe purchase some of their competitors". Especially considering he kept some of his stock in the company. Anyone could have done that regardless of their opinion on the trans issue. It could have been about the money not taking a side in identity politics.
prudent
Found your problem right here.