Members of Congress shouldn't own stock, neither should Supreme Court Justices. It's effectively a life appointment, they are well compensated, and there's obvious conflicts of interest. Money and justice don't mix well.
The harder solution is maybe we shouldn’t have 9 people appointed by the most powerful person in the country for life have that much power. It’s not very democratic.
One issue we have now isn't exactly insider trading: it's that insider trading has been happening for so long that it feels like simply requiring no conflicts of interest, as should be standard operating procedure, now feels like inventing an entirely new system.
And of course, we have to contend with all the people who are worried about disenfranching the people in these positions.
Or, maybe, just maybe: the people who should be representing the public and running the country are those who would do so without worrying about their self-enrichment first.
I think it was Technology Connection's Alec who pointed out something I never thought of. When he talked with people about oil, he realized that he had a preconception that oil was a stepping stone. He assumed that everyone agreed that at some point THE goal in energy production is to replace oil, not add more power sources to it. When he said that, my matching bias was suddenly put in the spotlight. Since then I've wondered how people like Alito don't see this as the obvious next step.
Public servants shouldn't be allowed to own stock, except maybe through some sort of arm's length diversified portfolio managed by a third party. Like, you can put money in Vanguard's index funds, but you can't pick individual stocks. Maybe. I would also accept that you just aren't allowed to own stock. Put your money in government bonds or something.
To act with abject incompetency, such as to draw question regarding fitness and ability concerning not just the current moment but respecting the subject at large
So long a he holds it, he is supposed to recuse himself from cases that affect those stocks. This has meant one less vote in the Supreme Court in favor of the oil industry
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who had recused himself in a prior petition in the Boulder case (possibly because he owned stock in ConocoPhillips) did not indicate that he would be recusing himself from the case. ConocoPhillips, which is not named in the Boulder case, is a defendant in other climate lawsuits.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who had recused himself in a prior petition in the Boulder case (possibly because he owned stock in ConocoPhillips) did not indicate that he would be recusing himself from the case. ConocoPhillips, which is not named in the Boulder case, is a defendant in other climate lawsuits.
26 Comments
SpruceBringsteen@lemmy.world · 70 pts · 185d
Members of Congress shouldn't own stock, neither should Supreme Court Justices. It's effectively a life appointment, they are well compensated, and there's obvious conflicts of interest. Money and justice don't mix well.
boonhet@sopuli.xyz · 17 pts · 185d
They should be allowed to invest in broad index funds. Shit that goes up when the economy is good and down when it's bad.
And maybe gvt bonds.
bright_side_@piefed.world · 7 pts · 185d
Or any politician...
FundMECFS@piefed.zip · 3 pts · 184d
Yes. That’s the easier solution.
The harder solution is maybe we shouldn’t have 9 people appointed by the most powerful person in the country for life have that much power. It’s not very democratic.
circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org · 39 pts · 185d
His what now?
One issue we have now isn't exactly insider trading: it's that insider trading has been happening for so long that it feels like simply requiring no conflicts of interest, as should be standard operating procedure, now feels like inventing an entirely new system.
And of course, we have to contend with all the people who are worried about disenfranching the people in these positions.
Or, maybe, just maybe: the people who should be representing the public and running the country are those who would do so without worrying about their self-enrichment first.
AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world · 31 pts · 185d
It's almost like high level public servants shouldn't be allowed to own stock...
CreamyJalapenoSauce@piefed.social · 17 pts · 185d
I think it was Technology Connection's Alec who pointed out something I never thought of. When he talked with people about oil, he realized that he had a preconception that oil was a stepping stone. He assumed that everyone agreed that at some point THE goal in energy production is to replace oil, not add more power sources to it. When he said that, my matching bias was suddenly put in the spotlight. Since then I've wondered how people like Alito don't see this as the obvious next step.
turdburglar@piefed.social · 4 pts · 185d
that was such a good video.
Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works · 14 pts · 184d
Feature, not a bug. Supreme Court is openly corrupt.
silence7@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 184d
We can make it into a bug if we're able to pressure him into recusing himself.
cpaq47@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 184d
I fear those days are long gone
jtrek@startrek.website · 11 pts · 185d
Public servants shouldn't be allowed to own stock, except maybe through some sort of arm's length diversified portfolio managed by a third party. Like, you can put money in Vanguard's index funds, but you can't pick individual stocks. Maybe. I would also accept that you just aren't allowed to own stock. Put your money in government bonds or something.
Doomsider@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 184d
You mean design policy to prevent corruption!?
favoredponcho@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 185d
tomenzgg@midwest.social · 3 pts · 184d
a·li·to /ˌʌˈli toʊ/ v.
To act with abject incompetency, such as to draw question regarding fitness and ability concerning not just the current moment but respecting the subject at largegrimpy@lemmy.myserv.one · 2 pts · 185d
Nolito
TachyonTele@piefed.social · 2 pts · 185d
Delito
derry@midwest.social · 1 pts · 185d
Tolito
TachyonTele@piefed.social · 1 pts · 185d
Tolito, talito... What's the difference!
Steve@startrek.website · 2 pts · 185d
Just sell it. 1 phone call.
silence7@slrpnk.net · 4 pts · 185d
So long a he holds it, he is supposed to recuse himself from cases that affect those stocks. This has meant one less vote in the Supreme Court in favor of the oil industry
TachyonTele@piefed.social · 5 pts · 185d
Has he actually done that though?
silence7@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 185d
In the past, yes, but not this time
switcheroo@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 184d
Sooo... a conflict of interest? Say it ain't so!
(Nothing's going to happen since the Pedo-in-Chief and most of the Gov is just as corrupt)
silence7@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 184d
As I mentioned before, Alito has recused himself over this from some cases in the past, but not so far on this one
Avicenna@programming.dev · 2 pts · 185d
I see nothing wrong here, move along citizen nudges with an electric prod
TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 184d
That's why the court declared Trump tariff illegal, because the judges obviously own stocks and hated it when their portfolio went down.