Sonia Sotomayor Ruled On Copyright Cases While Disclosing Book Fees Which Is Sort Of Like Years Of Covering Up Yacht Trips And Private School Tuition

//

(Photo by ERIN SCHAFF/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

If Sonia Sotomayor inappropriately refused to recuse herself from cases involving her publisher, that’s not a defense of Clarence Thomas taking half million dollar vacations from a billionaire… it’s a reason to be mad at Sotomayor too.

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-top-300x250" ); });

Alas, the folks at conservative outlet the Daily Wire fail to grasp the possibility of walking and chewing gum at the same time.

Sponsored The Ultimate Guide To eDiscovery With Google Workspace And Google Vault An effective team must be well-equipped to handle the unique challenges these tools present. From Onna and Above The Law  

After weeks of headlines branding the judicial ethics reports surrounding Clarence Thomas as “yellow journalism” and a “hit piece” and a “smear campaign,” the Daily Wire has settled upon a new defense of Thomas as the mounting revelations become more embarrassing to try to dismiss. While the publication saw nothing wrong with taking cash from actors with business before the court for almost a month now, they’ve found out that Sonia Sotomayor did something kind of, almost, not really, but if-you-squint-hard-enough similar so now it’s time to get deeply concerned about judicial ethics. Which isn’t the defense of Thomas that they seem to think it is.

And as far as alleged ethical lapses go, the two cases aren’t exactly comparable. The Daily Wire clumsily explains:

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-middle-300x250" ); }); googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-storycontent-440x100" ); }); googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-in-story-youtube-1x1" ); });

In 2017, Sotomayor began receiving payments each year from Penguin Random House itself, which continued annually through at least 2021, the most recent disclosure available, and totaled more than $500,000. In all, she received $3.6 million from Penguin Random House or its subsidiaries, according to a Daily Wire tally of financial disclosures.

The critical detail in this passage is “financial disclosures.” As in, unlike Clarence Thomas, Justice Sotomayor actually disclosed all of this so the interns at the Daily Wire could easily type it all into a calculator while the reporters at ProPublica dug through buried documents to compile potentially Pulitzer-winning journalism.

Sponsored Sponsored ChatGPT Draws State Lawmakers’ Attention To AI ChatGPT and other AI models have drawn a great deal of public attention since being introduced last year—state lawmakers are taking notice too. From Korey Clark, Editor, State Net Capitol Journal™   Sponsored Lex Machina Expands The Power Of Legal Analytics To Litigation In State Courts Lex Machina expands its powerful machine learning, trained and reviewed by attorneys, to help legal practitioners make data-driven decisions in state courts as well as… From Ethan Beberness   Sponsored Why CRM Is An Essential Tech Tool For Law Firms In 2023 CRMs are powerful tools to help law firms grow and scale without needing more staff. Read on for a brief overview of the basic benefits… From Jan Hill - Lawmatics   Sponsored Why CRM Is An Essential Tech Tool For Law Firms In 2023 CRMs are powerful tools to help law firms grow and scale without needing more staff. Read on for a brief overview of the basic benefits… From Jan Hill - Lawmatics  

She also actually wrote books, which doesn’t negate the financial relationship, but as corruption goes it hits a bit different when someone pays you for work product as opposed to funneling money into clandestine vacations for nothing. The latter reads a lot more like a bribe.

At the end of the day, Sotomayor probably should recuse herself from cases involving her publisher. Justice Breyer did this with the publisher. But all this really proves is why we need an explicit ethical code for the Supreme Court because the status quo model leaving the justices to their own devices on whether or not to recuse themselves isn’t working. That doesn’t buy Thomas much solace because the most generous read is that he shouldn’t be blamed for hearing cases where Harlan Crow had a financial interest, but does nothing to address the more pressing ethical concern that Thomas gratuitously took huge sums of money in breach of disclosure requirements.

Nice try though.

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-bottom-300x250" ); });

Liberal SCOTUS Justice Took $3M From Book Publisher, Didn’t Recuse From Its Cases [Daily Wire]

Sponsored Sponsored Exploring ESG through the Lens of Risk Management Join us on May 11th and learn how to frame ESG as risk management and the trends to watch. From Axiom and Above The Law   Sponsored The Ultimate Guide To eDiscovery With Google Workspace And Google Vault An effective team must be well-equipped to handle the unique challenges these tools present. From Onna and Above The Law  

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Topics

Clarence Thomas, Courts, Judicial Ethics, Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court