A lot of hand-wringing has accompanied Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett's $2 million book deal (including from those of us who wish we had a $2 million book deal). While there's always reason to worry when big piles of money land on the court, and Coney Barrett has wasted little time monetizing her new job, some larger points are getting lost in all of this. After all, Coney Barrett isn't the first justice to reel in a big book deal. Here's the rub: Federal ethics guidelines mandate that justices can't accept more than about $30,000 annually in outside pay. However, book income — which can reliably bring in much larger sums than the relatively modest pay justices receive for teaching gigs — is exempt from the guidelines. When these deals arise, concerns are often voiced about justices being compromised by pocketing money from publishers who might have free-speech and other issues affecting them before the court. But books are only a small part of a bigger problem: The Supreme Court's conflicts of interest and financial disclosure rules remain ragged and outdated.
Read the whole thing. U.S. and Russia Are on a Collision Course in the Black Sea — James Stavridis The Big Question: Can India Find a Way Out of Its Covid Nightmare? — Bobby Ghosh Tesla Is on Thin Ice With Chinese Regulators — Anjani Trivedi CDC Still Getting Interference. This Time From Teachers. — Joe Nocera Warren Buffett Touted America. Too Bad He Didn't Buy. — Tara Lachapelle Why Republican Politicians Stick With Trump — Jonathan Bernstein India's Stock Market Lives on Another Planet — Andy Mukherjee Dogecoin Is Up Because It's Funny — Matt Levine If the Pentagon Takes UFOs Seriously, So Should Markets — Tyler Cowen This is the Weekend Edition of Bloomberg Opinion Today, a roundup of the most popular stories Bloomberg Opinion published this week based on web readership. | 
Post a Comment