For Chief Justice John Roberts, it's Hewlett-Packard. Stephen Breyer has Colgate-Palmolive, Bank of America, IBM, Nestle. Samuel Alito: Bristol-Myers Squibb and Exxon Mobil.
Those companies are among 33 that went to the U.S. Supreme Court in hopes of killing a lawsuit against them. Victims of South Africa's brutal apartheid era are suing American companies they say aided racist repression there.
But when the businesses asked the Supreme Court to consider reversing a lower court ruling that keeps the case alive, the justices couldn't muster a quorum.
Four stepped aside, the court reported this week. Anthony Kennedy presumably declined to participate because his son is a banker at Credit Suisse Group, one of the companies bringing the appeal. Fine.
Roberts, Breyer and Alito, on the other hand, apparently removed themselves from the roster because they hold stock in at least one of the companies bringing the appeal.
[ ... ]
But all those reasons are precisely why justices should avoid creating unnecessary conflicts of interest.
If these people put their responsibility to their rather important jobs above their portfolios, they would have sold their shares and done the work they were selected to do. As for tax implications, a 2006 law lets them defer capital gains tax when selling stock to avoid a conflict of interest.
It isn't as if they are filing clerks or bat boys. And given how many of the tough questions have been decided by 5-4 votes in recent years, every justice counts.
Yes, going on the court usually requires financial sacrifice, and a big one at that. In private practice until 2001, Roberts pulled down more than $1 million a year. As chief justice he earns a mere $217,400.
That is paltry compensation for this important work done by these bright and accomplished people.
But, please. They knew that going in. And the job does have other forms of compensation, like helping set the legal landscape of the nation for decades to come.
~ more... ~
No comments:
Post a Comment