Sonia Sotomayor failed to recuse herself from cases involving her largest (by far) benefactor
Cat got the donkey’s tongue? For all Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s asinine and angry braying about impeaching Supreme Court justices over “ethics” issues, she’s oddly silent over a recent revelation that screams of bad optics.
Less than a month ago, Ocasio-Cortez expressed her willingness to draft articles of impeachment against Justice Clarence Thomas over his friendship with Harlan Crow — as it turned out, the story was a nothingburger, and all nine justices agreed that the accusations of wrongdoing leveled against Thomas were baseless, and undeserving of outside investigation. Furthermore, in reference to Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, AOC issued a statement which read:
I believe that not recusing from cases that one clearly has family members involved in with very deep violations of conflict of interest are also impeachable offenses.
Well, what about financiers? Would they be considered conflicts of interest? I’d say so.
Newly disclosed information details that Justice Sonia Sotomayor neglected to recuse herself from several cases involving her most generous benefactor, and the outcomes yielded “fortuitous” favor for friends of the justice.
From the Daily Wire:
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor declined to recuse herself from multiple copyright infringement cases involving book publisher Penguin Random House despite having been paid millions by the firm for her books, making it by far her largest source of income, records show.
So how much money are we talking? Well, right around $3.6 million, an amount which “dwarfed” her salary as a justice on the highest court.
Over the years, in multiple cases in which the publishing giant was listed as a defendant, the Court denied the plaintiff the opportunity to be heard at the supreme level. Read one such example below:
In October 2019, children’s author Jennie Nicassio petitioned the Supreme Court to hear her lawsuit…alleging that the book publisher had copied her book…. On the same day that the petition was distributed to the justices, Sotomayor received a $10,586 check from the publisher.
On February 24, 2020, the Supreme Court voted not to hear the case, denying the ‘writ of certiorari’ and meaning that the case would remain where it left off — with a circuit court having found in the publisher’s favor. Sotomayor’s next check, coming in May of that year, was her largest ever from the parent company, at $82,807.
Now, it ought to be noted that the justices’ votes on whether to hear a case or not are kept confidential (we cannot know for sure how Sotomayor voted), but recusals are public information. Also worth mentioning though is that Justice Breyer (who also benefited financially from the publishing company) did recuse himself where Sotomayor did not — I can only assume he viewed the relationship as a conflict of interest, and saw the scandal of poor perception coming from a mile away.
But to what does this all really boil down? An elitist driven by leftist ideology likely behaving unethically? Talk about redundancy.
What this is really about is the left’s continued war against America and the Constitution. The anti-American left doesn’t own the Court, so the Court as is, must be destroyed.
From commentary published at The Hayride:
The Democrats who control the Senate, and their propagandist allies in the media, are in the process of trying to devalue and besmirch the Supreme Court over ‘ethical’ issues, with the linchpin of the case being the fact that Clarence Thomas, the Justice whom they hate most owing to his status as a black jurist who managed not to be captured on their intellectual plantation, frequently vacations with a rich friend who has no business in front of the Supreme Court.
What a flop. The operatives set the snare for Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, but of course, snagged one of their own; and predictably, radio silence.
Louisiana’s Senator John Kennedy issued a sobering statement regarding the slow march towards political tyranny at the hands of the left — it’s eleven minutes long, but it’s worth the time:
Image: Free image, Pixabay license, no attribution required.