131 federal judges failed to recuse themselves
from cases in which they had financial interest: report

One hundred and thirty-one federal judges oversaw court cases involving companies
in which they or their family members owned stock, according to a new investigation.

Those judges violated U.S. law and judicial ethics as they failed to recuse themselves
from a total of 685 court cases in which they may have had a conflict of interest, an
investigation by The Wall Street Journal found.

In those cases, about two-thirds of the rulings were in favor of the financial interests of
the judge, the Journal reported.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/574244-131-federal-judges-failed-to-recuse-themselves-from-cases-in-which

If the JUDGEMENT of these JUDGES is so poor, what does it say about their JUDGEMENTS in COURT CASES?

fake news!
not proven in a court of law!

Sheeit, I got questions from Legal when I had something like 20 shares in Dell when we were getting new Dell computers.  I'm not even in IT. . . :facepalm: 

I didn't see this covered in the article but I wonder how deep they are going when it comes to having a financial interest. Did these include financial interests where the judges owned the stock in individually or as part of a mutual fund or index fund? I know what stocks I own directly but I have no idea what specific companies I am invested in through my retirement account mutual funds. If we are talking about index funds then it would be very hard for judges to hear any financial cases. So I wonder if they knew there was a conflict and they ignored it or if they didn't know at all.

I didn't see this covered in the article but I wonder how deep they are going when it comes to having a financial interest. Did these include financial interests where the judges owned the stock in individually or as part of a mutual fund or index fund? I know what stocks I own directly but I have no idea what specific companies I am invested in through my retirement account mutual funds. If we are talking about index funds then it would be very hard for judges to hear any financial cases. So I wonder if they knew there was a conflict and they ignored it or if they didn't know at all.

these types of things are spelled out in most job agreements...

I didn't see this covered in the article but I wonder how deep they are going when it comes to having a financial interest. Did these include financial interests where the judges owned the stock in individually or as part of a mutual fund or index fund? I know what stocks I own directly but I have no idea what specific companies I am invested in through my retirement account mutual funds. If we are talking about index funds then it would be very hard for judges to hear any financial cases. So I wonder if they knew there was a conflict and they ignored it or if they didn't know at all.

Most of this is available on the fund managers' websites.  It changes, but a review right before the case begins is reasonable.

It's really not a major inconvenience for a judge, his clerk, or someone else to call or email the mutual fund and/or index fund managers.

"Judge SoAndSo is due to be associated with a case involving the following participants:

- Company ABC
- Company 123
- Company Widget-Maker

Please advise whether the following accounts are invested in any of the above companies' stock, bonds or other financial interest:

- Mutual Fund Elite
- Mutual Fund Fred
- Index Fund NASDAQ 2055

Request a response by October 22, 2021, so the Judge knows whether there may be a conflict of interest in this matter,"

Why do people have to pretend things are too hard to manage?

If the judge doesn’t even know, is it conflict of interest?
He’s still judging impartially if he has no knowledge of a conflict. IMO

Edit:
If he has knowledge of a conflict, direct investment, but still proceeds then that’s messed up.
Even if there’s an appearance of conflict you’re supposed to back out.
But this is, in some cases, some buried and blurry stuff.

Second Edit:
(I hadn’t read Flapp’s post yet missed by 2 minutes. Think it’s still relevant.)

If the judge doesn’t even know, is it conflict of interest?
He’s still judging impartially if he has no knowledge of a conflict. IMO

Only requires the appearance of a possible conflict.  If it exists the judge shall recuse -- as in "must" ... not optional.

No requirement to show he actually knew.  Up to the judge to know their personal and family members' investments and disclose them.

I just think EEF has a good point.
I have no idea what my or my wife or my brother or my………..IRA, 401K, Mutual funds……are invested in.
I don’t know the details of these judge situations but that could be a wide net.

I just think EEF has a good point.
I have no idea what my or my wife or my brother or my………..IRA, 401K, Mutual funds……are invested in.
I don’t know the details of these judge situations but that could be a wide net.

Federal judge.  Not sure if they have same standards as other Federal employees, but if they do, they are required to report certain things for their spouse.  Once they report and sign the filing (required annually), doesn’t matter if you had no idea. 

https://www.oge.gov/web/278eguide.nsf/2cf9ac792bc0654a85257ea1005f838a/bec30b1cbf2e222985257f450076a0f5?OpenDocument

Like how the fake news blasted trump for having stock in the company that makes remdisivar.

Only to find out it was part of a mutual fund and about $13k worth of stock. He has more money in his pocket.

Then they looked stupid and dropped the story.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Like how the fake news blasted trump for having stock in the company that makes remdisivar.

Only to find out it was part of a mutual fund and about $13k worth of stock. He has more money in his pocket.

Then they looked stupid and dropped the story.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I was just going to bring that up because it seems like there is a double standard here. We can't both slam a judge because some of his mutual fund was invested in a company yet give Trump a pass for the same thing.

I think the details matter here. If a judge is ruling on a case where they have $50,000 grand invested or it is a major portion of their portfolio then they shouldn't touch the case. But if the investment represents a tiny fraction of the portfolio then I wouldn't really be concerned. But of course a headline claiming hundreds of judges had financial conflicts of interest is an attention getter and anyone with an axe to grind isn't going to stop and ask how serious the conflict of interest is.

I was just going to bring that up because it seems like there is a double standard here. We can't both slam a judge because some of his mutual fund was invested in a company yet give Trump a pass for the same thing.

I think the details matter here. If a judge is ruling on a case where they have $50,000 grand invested or it is a major portion of their portfolio then they shouldn't touch the case. But if the investment represents a tiny fraction of the portfolio then I wouldn't really be concerned. But of course a headline claiming hundreds of judges had financial conflicts of interest is an attention getter and anyone with an axe to grind isn't going to stop and ask how serious the conflict of interest is.

Very big difference between what Trump was accused of doing and what these judges actually did.

Trump has other people advising him on remdisivar, but a judge makes 100% of the decisions in a trial.

Then enter people like Pelosi's husband who buys millions of dollars of stocks before companies are awarded government contracts. Had that been Trump, it would have been another impeachment.

Very big difference between what Trump was accused of doing and what these judges actually did.

Trump has other people advising him on remdisivar, but a judge makes 100% of the decisions in a trial.

Your stretching pretty hard to defend Trump here. Not only did he fail to truly divest in a way to eliminate conflicts of interest but you are clearly minimizing the power of the presidency.

Why not just be ethically consistent and admit Trump should have divested?

Your stretching pretty hard to defend Trump here. Not only did he fail to truly divest in a way to eliminate conflicts of interest but you are clearly minimizing the power of the presidency.

Why not just be ethically consistent and admit Trump should have divested?

You're stretching pretty hard to use a WhatAboutIsm to argue that the judges can't be held accountable under the law -- because "What about Trump?"

Trump's finances have been researched with with a fine toothed comb.  If his people, the IRS, the DOJ. and all the other members of the government with access didn't blow the whistle and start another impeachment trial, maybe it's because they know more than you?  Maybe there's no "There" there for Trump to divest anything?

You're stretching pretty hard to use a WhatAboutIsm to argue that the judges can't be held accountable under the law -- because "What about Trump?"

I'm sorry, I have this nagging habit wanting people to be logically consistent. If MAGA people can bend over backwards to excuse the president's ethics violations then they should apply it the same to the judges.

Trump's finances have been researched with with a fine toothed comb.  If his people, the IRS, the DOJ. and all the other members of the government with access didn't blow the whistle and start another impeachment trial, maybe it's because they know more than you?  Maybe there's no "There" there for Trump to divest anything?

He failed to divest which was the ethical standard.

I'm sorry, I have this nagging habit wanting people to be logically consistent. If MAGA people can bend over backwards to excuse the president's ethics violations then they should apply it the same to the judges.

He failed to divest which was the ethical standard.

please show where it states this...

He failed to divest which was the ethical standard.

You're looking at this backwards -- talk about inconsistency!!

The judges weren't accused of not disclosing their investments.  They were accused of not recusing themselves because of the appearance of a conflict.  Disclosure is half the equation.  They would have to go the next step and have some other judge hear the case.

The judges may have been able to divest their investments in the companies that represented conflicts, but they didn't do that, either.

Trump wasn't able to recuse himself of his duties.  He can't just step down and have someone else handle the pandemic.  The issue at hand was not isolated.  It was part of the overall pandemic solutions' planning and implementation.

Here are Trump's financial disclosures for 2018.  Why don't you scroll through, and point to the conflict of interest that compromised him as President.

https://pfds.opensecrets.org/N00023864_2018.pdf