Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Whistleblower Hits John Roberts
🚨🚨🚨SCOOP: New whistleblower docs show Jane Roberts, who is married to SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts, made $10.3 million placing lawyers at elite firms — https://t.co/uB82RgJ8YC
— Mattathias Schwartz (@Schwartzesque) April 28, 2023
This is the new normal. Democrats are hitting every conservative justice to claim corruption, bribery, and a compromised court. It doesn’t matter that their claims aren’t crimes or anything really. It didn’t matter that the Russian dossier was fake. It didn’t matter that they’re charging Trump with 136 years for non-crimes. This will never end until Democrats get a taste of their own medicine.
Democrats will likely be calling Merrick Garland for a special counsel to look at the court. The media pushes and anonymous whistle-blowers are how they get investigations started. Then they’ll hope to find anything in which to drive at least one of them from the court or taint them permanently. The same way they did Trump. They don’t care what they do to the court or its reputation. They allege John Robert’s wife is involved in some kind of pay-to-play scheme for being a head hunter for law firms around the country. Meanwhile, the Clinton Foundation sits untouched, as do Epstein’s customers, and so does the Biden Crime Syndicate.
In many ways this is John Roberts’ fault like the rest of the milquetoast GOP. There were plenty of opportunities to review their election malfeasance, get rid of Obamacare, hold the Roe leaker to account, review what corrupt special counsels were and are doing, etc. Instead John Roberts decided to be the one justice to throw them bone after bone. And what did it get him? Claims of corruption against him and his wife. And claims that the conservative side of the court is corrupt in general. Until Democrats get a taste of their own medicine this will never end. Indict indict indict.
Published in General
To me, it’s more than their getting a taste of their own medicine–how about a little justice and fairness?!
No, Congress has to impeach first. Which they obviously don’t have the stones to do, or they’d have already done it.
What the Dems and the Commies (but I repeat myself) are doing is trying to gin up enough “outrage” they can go ahead and expand the Court, with they will then pack with their desired flunkies. That’s their endgame with this.
“Whistleblower”? I want to start with more context about how that word applies to the story.
While I agree with that statement, what will ever move the needle? Nancy Pelosi’ insane wealth has had no visible effect. Insider trading is literally legal for members of congress. Republican presidents make their fortunes before entering the White House and Democrat presidents get rich while in the White House and after. I just don’t know what it would take to actually make something happen to anyone with a D after their name. Don’t get me started on the current occupant. Has there ever been a more corrupt POTUS? All after a lifetime or corruption before that. And what’s happening? Crickets.
My hope is that Clarence T. gets the fellas on the SCOTUS right to get all vengeful and go scorched earth on the deep state. Hell hath no fury like a justice scorned….I hope.
And now I hear that Justice Alito has a pretty good idea of who the leaker is, but not overwhelming evidence. How about sitting with the leaker in a room and quietly say that he’s going to lose his job, so he can either leave with shame or leave quietly. Not totally satisfying, but there has to be a way to get the guy (or girl) out!
Gives good fishbait a really bad name.
If you follow the link to the Business Insider story, you’ll find an affidavit from Kendal Price, stating that he was a Managing Director at Major, Lindsey & Africa (MLA), an executive search firm at which Justice Roberts’s wife worked. He details her earnings, and states that she switched from practicing lawyer to join MLA and provide services placing lawyers at law firms. It details the money that she made from this practice, and claims that she may have been the highest-earning legal recruiter globally. It claims that she was making quite a bit of money placing lawyers at law firms that had cases before her husband at the Supreme Court.
This is a potential problem, common to family members of other high government officials. As in the case reported in the OP, the spouse presents the biggest problem, as it is generally true that any money made by the spouse is part of the marital and household income of the government official.
If it was any Republican President nominating a replacement I wouldn’t care so much: But the thought of Xiden..😡
Sucks for him – you’d think a judge would have known the importance of getting ‘we’ll eat you last’ in writing.
Please don’t mistake any of this as a specific defense of “conservative” Chief Justice John Roberts as opposed to the continued battle for intellectual honesty and against cultivated mass delusional hysteria narrative planting that it is but…the 24 hour rule for letting such stories marinate seems to have been worth it yet again:
[Emphasis added]
While the specifics escape me at the moment, I seem to remember other instances where the Democrat-Media-Complex stretched the meaning of the term “whistleblower” to overhype other fake scandals. Too many fall for it every time. By now we should all know to assume it is all BS for the first 24 hours…and by then we generally know that is is all BS.
Given the total lack of any credible counterpoint, I’m moving on from this steaming pile of [blank] on the sidewalk of life…
The one that galled me the most was during the early 2000s, when the Chief of the U.S. Park Police had a dispute with her bosses (i.e., the Bush administration) about funding for her agency. She was fired after testifying that she didn’t have enough resources to do the job. As anyone who worked in a Federal agency knows, once budget and policy decisions are made (even if you don’t agree with them), you carry out the mission. If you don’t like the mission or don’t think the resources are sufficient, you keep lobbying your bosses or you quit.
After being fired, she claimed “whistleblower” status (she was the head of the freaking agency!) and pursued her case through the courts, I believe finally winning. What a joke.
I really don’t see how being a legal headhunter for top firms and making a lot of money at it translates to corruption. If you haven’t done the job, maybe you don’t know, but top talent doesn’t move often and if there is a go-to person for finding another top place, then that person will make a lot of money.
If the reason she became the go-to person was her husband’s job or connections, I’m still not sure I see a problem. The candidate and the hiring firm still have to be a match. No 3rd party recruiter in the world can force a hire on a client.
The strong, legitimate question is about placing attorneys in firms with cases before the Supreme Court. The way it works, though, the firm isn’t hiring her, she’s presenting a candidate to them, an uncompensated 3rd party who only gets paid if the candidate is hired. There’s no way to make a direct connection that the firm is trying to gain favor with Roberts by hiring her candidates because they are not seeking her out.
That’s the bones of it, but is it corruption? We’d have to match attorneys, firms, cases, and decisions. If this wasn’t already done and a connection mentioned, then it probably means there is nothing there. If anyone wants to do the legwork, however, that’s the way to go.
Honestly, what we’ve seen leads me to believe this Court belongs to Justice Thomas. He’s the one running the show. Being in the good books of Justice Roberts doesn’t mean much at the moment.
Thanks for the insight! My first thought was “so what is wrong with making money by placing people at law firms?” Jerry alluded to some “potential problems” but didn’t elucidate. The Clarence Thomas thing seems to have blown over quickly. I suspect this one will, too.
Meanwhile, the same press ignored Burisma Joe and the Biden Family influence peddling syndicate. I can wait for when the people of Commentary and/or @noahrothman tell conservatives we should respect the institutions we have in this country.
It’s a conflict of interest.
Not necessarily. As Chris notes:
Since there’s no mention of that in the article, I must assume there’s nothing there.
Again, the whole point of this “whistleblower” and the allegations against Mr. Justice Thomas is to try and get support for expanding and packing SCOTUS. That’s the goal. I the Left really had anything, they’d try to impeach the Justices.
Conflict of interest doesn’t mean it’s not a conflict of interest if you behaved well.
The particular actions are irrelevant as to whether there is a conflict of interest.
And we’re never going to understand how the administrative state is a problem is we don’t understand that.
Then perhaps you would be so kind as to state what the actual conflict is?
We’re going to start turning circles here, but the conflict is firms with cases before the Supreme Court paying large fees to a recruiter married to a justice. But, as I said, she represents the candidate, not the firm. I’d say this area is gray, trending to the iffy side.
Again, if there were any slight sniff of undue influence, it would have been presented in the article. While the whole thing is questionable, I look at this a bit like a non-compete clause. At some point, someone is entitled to make a living at their chosen profession.
She and her hubby are in in a position to make a lot of money among people who will at minimum, not want to get on the wrong side of the court, and who will see potential advantages of helping her be successful. Her hubby also has a duty to administer equal justice to everyone. Just because she or he never let the right hand influence what the left hand is doing doesn’t mean there isn’t a conflict of interest.
Whether it’s an illegal conflict of interest, I don’t know.
Washington D.C. is full of conflicts of interest like this, e.g. when government officials share the same bed with influential news reporters. The news reporters will swear up and down that the relationship doesn’t affect their reportage, and the government officials will swear up and down that their decisions are not influenced by the relationship, but even if it’s true it doesn’t mean there isn’t a conflict of interest.
One way to deal with this problem would be to allow only eunuchs or cloistered monks and nuns to be government officials, lobbyists, reporters, etc. There are probably other less extreme ways, as well.
Someone who is married to a justice of the supreme court could avoid business relationships with companies that have business pending before the court. That wouldn’t remove all possible conflicts of interest, but it would remove some of the most blatant ones.
Seems to me I’ve heard of government codes of ethics that have such prohibitions, though I’m not familiar enough with them to cite chapter and verse.
Our current ruling classes are not endogamous ruling classes like the old aristocratic classes of Europe, but it seems there was a book that came out in the 90s or 2000s that described how our society is becoming more like that. Maybe one written by Charles Murray? I’m not sure. These types of relationships are an example of how it works.
So … where is the oppo research and attacks on Justices Sotomayer, Kagan and Jackson?
The fact that they are just bringing this up now (right after Roe vs. Wade overturned) when it has been going on for nearly 20 years tells us that it is probably a nothing burger. Same with Justice Thomas. Did not one single leftist notice this has been going on since 2005? Can the activists have been this blind?
About ten years ago or so, we talked about it here when it came out. It talked about an elite class, as I recall.
I don’t disagree at all with what you’re saying, I’m just not presuming guilt, nor assuming innocence.
Making something happen in the gray area of ethics? Well, okay, they’ve earned a frowny face. We have much more blatant examples of corruption I’d like to pursue at this time.
I would gladly sacrifice John Roberts if it would clean up all the rest of this kind of conflict of interest. But if not, then not.
You’re assuming the Chief Justice of the United States knows what firms Mrs. Roberts places lawyers at. He may very well have no idea where she’s placed lawyers.
If Madame Justice Kagan did not recuse herself from the Obamacare cases when she had argued them as Solicitor General, then this (and the allegations against Mr. Justice Thomas) is nothing.
Again, the point is to gin up support for stacking the Court. If there were any real conflict of interests that a Justice did not recuse him/her self from, the Left would try to impeach.
Her pronoun is she. Of course she was going to win.
I wonder if after Biden or other Democrat POTUS and the Democrat Senators take stronger power of the Senate will the conservative SCOTUS members be retired or removed to be replaced with SCOTUS membership that is more acceptable for the federal government..