« Latest Rakoff v. SEC v. Citi Opinion: Worth A Read |
| Interesting interview with IBM's GC regarding non-lawyer ownership of firms »
It's getting wide coverage. Here's the LA Times account and the one from SCOTUS Blog. Chief Justice Roberts' take, in the annual report at the link below, is similar to Justice Stevens' (in comments after he retired) and Justice Breyer's.
Posted by John Steele at 03:01 AM | Permalink
Has anyone ever seen the 1991 internal memo?
What is its binding effect (in the view of the Justices themselves) including on those 6 or 7 Justices who joined the Court since the memo was adopted (one Justice, Thomas, joined in 1991, so we don't know if he came on before or after the memo).
The most interesting part of the Chief's memo, and perhaps provocative for some, may be the statements that although the Justices have complied with the duty to report outside income and although they have also followed the recusal statutes, both of which apply to them by their terms, it has never been settled whether Congress has the power to impose the obligations in either law to the Supreme Court, a co-equal branch of government created by the Constitution (unlike the lower courts which require Congressional enactment).
Stephen Gillers |
January 01, 2012 at 02:08 PM
A more complete comment on the situation came out this month. I would love to hear responses.
Sarah Hart |
January 26, 2012 at 12:18 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.