[archildress]

Headline ought to be re-written as "Supreme Court forced to codify once-unwritten rules due to rampant abuse by Justice Thomas."

[parrellel]

Don't forget Robert's Wife, Alito, and (because we must cover our bases) Sotomayor's Children's books.

[ImJamal]

You may want to read the article since others have issues as well.

>Many of those stories focused on Justice Clarence Thomas and his failure to disclose travel and other financial ties with wealthy conservative donors including Harlan Crow and the Koch brothers. But Justices Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor also have been under scrutiny.

[archildress]

Roughly equivalent to "all news networks are biased", overlooking the "but not to equivalent degrees."

[addicted]

I suspect there’s a lot of gray areas and I suspect justices of all stripes have tripped over the gray area multiple times.

But I think all the justices can see what Thomas was doing was pretty awful and I doubt any of the other justices, even those whose views I find abhorrent, would have gone that far.

And we’re only talking about justices’ actions themselves. This ethics code very clearly brings in consideration of the judge’s spouse’s activities as well, something which, once again is a major problem with Thomas, and none of the other judges as far as I can tell.

[drawkward]

That may be true, but the extent of the reporting suggests that The Honorable Justice Thomas might be a bit more ethically lapsed.

[rqtwteye]

Good! Let's bring it all into the open. At a minimum it will show that these supposedly ethical people are basically just playthings paid for by billionaires. It's pretty crazy that low level government employees have way stricter ethical requirements than the higher ups.

[KerrAvon]

under scrutiny doing a lot of work in that sentence. What does that mean in practice?