News Article: Alito: Congress Can't Tell SC What to Do

[Tidewater]

I hadn’t thought about a double-blind arrangement, but I like the idea.

I also think it’s really important that the tax returns should be public prior to getting the office. As in, if the office is elected, three years before being qualifying to run for the office. Or if it’s a Congressionally-confirmed appointed office, date confirmation materials are submitted.

The goal here is that whoever decides whether the candidate gets the office (the electorate or Congress) has full financial information prior to the decision. And of course every year during service.

If the spouse files separately, the spouse’s returns and financial statements are public. No hiding assets and/or income by saying, “It’s not mine….it’s my spouse’s.”

Submitting false or incomplete information would be subject to prosecution for perjury and removal from office.

Good ideas.

 

[Tidewater]

Interesting idea. As the manager you'd probably still have to know some information about the person but I think you could get away with not knowing who the name.

I would imagine some way of hiding that could be devised.
What I am interested in is avoid the kinds of people who seek public office in order to make a mountain of money by selling votes, cashing in on insider info, etc. Those are exactly the kinds of people you don't want in public office.

 

[RollTide_HTTR]

I would imagine some way of hiding that could be devised.
What I am interested in is avoid the kinds of people who seek public office in order to make a mountain of money by selling votes, cashing in on insider info, etc. Those are exactly the kinds of people you don't want in public office.

Completely agree. I just wonder if the "Know your client" rules would make this harder.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

Completely agree. I just wonder if the "Know your client" rules would make this harder.

KYC is primarily to know with a reasonable degree of certainty that (1) the client isn’t using the account (whether a bank or an investment account) to do or cover up anything illegal, and (2) that they don’t have a history of illegal activity. There are already protocols for Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs), and that term is defined in the regulations.

In the case of PEPs, it’d be pretty easy to know about any past illegal actions, and there’s a lot of automated monitoring of bank account activity to flag anything suspicious. I don’t know about investment accounts, but I’d imagine there are similar regulatory requirements.

The things a manager would need to know include the client’s age and whether there are any considerations that would indicate a shorter or longer investment horizon than is normal for his or her age.

You wouldn’t necessarily need to know their exact age. A 3-5 year range would be fine for purposes of investment allocation and would provide camouflage for the individual in question.

Then you‘d need to know if there are unusual circumstances — say a disabled spouse or adult child that can’t be expected to care for themselves. Maybe providing support for a disabled relative outside of the immediate family. Maybe children approaching college age. Maybe a medical condition that indicates a life expectancy shorter than normal.

The possibilities are endless, but you get the idea. Anything that could cause the investment horizon to be different from what you would normally expect for an investor of a given chronological age.

One possible sticking point I can see is when the potential officeholder or spouse has a closely-held business. Its performance could affect the rest of the investment allocations. Though as I think about it, you might be able to feed the manager raw performance data without identifying the business.

So yes, there would be some details to address and loose ends to tie up, but I think all of this can be addressed, and the managers wouldn’t have to know whose assets they’re managing.

 

[RollTide_HTTR]

KYC is primarily to know with a reasonable degree of certainty that (1) the client isn’t using the account (whether a bank or an investment account) to do or cover up anything illegal, and (2) that they don’t have a history of illegal activity. There are already protocols for Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs), and that term is defined in the regulations.

In the case of PEPs, it’d be pretty easy to know about any past illegal actions, and there’s a lot of automated monitoring of bank account activity to flag anything suspicious. I don’t know about investment accounts, but I’d imagine there are similar regulatory requirements.

The things a manager would need to know include the client’s age and whether there are any considerations that would indicate a shorter or longer investment horizon than is normal for his or her age.

You wouldn’t necessarily need to know their exact age. A 3-5 year range would be fine for purposes of investment allocation and would provide camouflage for the individual in question.

Then you‘d need to know if there are unusual circumstances — say a disabled spouse or adult child that can’t be expected to care for themselves. Maybe providing support for a disabled relative outside of the immediate family. Maybe children approaching college age. Maybe a medical condition that indicates a life expectancy shorter than normal.

The possibilities are endless, but you get the idea. Anything that could cause the investment horizon to be different from what you would normally expect for an investor of a given chronological age.

One possible sticking point I can see is when the potential officeholder or spouse has a closely-held business. Its performance could affect the rest of the investment allocations. Though as I think about it, you might be able to feed the manager raw performance data without identifying the business.

So yes, there would be some details to address and loose ends to tie up, but I think all of this can be addressed, and the managers wouldn’t have to know whose assets they’re managing.

Yea this is all exactly what I'm talking about. I think you might be right that you could find a system that works around all of this but I don't think it'd be all that simple.

But I'm not a regulator or a lawyer I just do my annual CE where I only have to know the basics and prove I'm not an idiot.

 

[crimsonaudio]

It's a sad state of affairs when the SCOTUS needs oversight - but the elected body that can be the check / balance is as, if not more corrupt.

Sickens me that we've gotten to the point where it appears MOST people in DC - elected OR appointed - are happy to 'serve' but only because they have access to the benefits and luxuries the average US citizen does not.

Greed for money and power is not just a problem in the free market. It's infected our federal political system to the degree they don't even try to hide it anymore.

The rampant greed is disgusting.

 

[Tidewater]

It's a sad state of affairs when the SCOTUS needs oversight - but the elected body that can be the check / balance is as, if not more corrupt.

Sickens me that we've gotten to the point where it appears MOST people in DC - elected OR appointed - are happy to 'serve' but only because they have access to the benefits and luxuries the average US citizen does not.

Greed for money and power is not just a problem in the free market. It's infected our federal political system to the degree they don't even try to hide it anymore.

The rampant greed is disgusting.

Amen.
My idea is to encourage those who want to make a lot of money to go elsewhere (beside office-holding in DC) to do it.
I want to folks holding office to truly understand that they are public servants.

The mountains of money you can make in Congress attract scum the way poop draws flies.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

It's a sad state of affairs when the SCOTUS needs oversight - but the elected body that can be the check / balance is as, if not more corrupt.

The rampant greed is disgusting.

1,000% agreed.

As much as I’ve disagreed with previous SCOTUS decisions, I’ve never before thought they had a financial or ideological interest in the outcome.

I no longer have that faith. Some members are bought and paid for. Others made their minds up as to outcomes decades ago, and no amount of legal logic will sway them. “My mind is made up….don’t confuse me with logic.”

**Heavy sigh**

 

[CrimsonJazz]

1,000% agreed.

As much as I’ve disagreed with previous SCOTUS decisions, I’ve never before thought they had a financial or ideological interest in the outcome.

I no longer have that faith. Some members are bought and paid for. Others made their minds up as to outcomes decades ago, and no amount of legal logic will sway them. “My mind is made up….don’t confuse me with logic.”

**Heavy sigh**

I remember Chief Justice Roberts getting his shorts in an awful twist at the suggestion that personal politics plays a role in how SCOTUS decisions are made. I used to wonder if he was genuinely this delusional or just plain full of crap. Either way, it's a bad look.

 

[RollTide_HTTR]

I remember Chief Justice Roberts getting his shorts in an awful twist at the suggestion that personal politics plays a role in how SCOTUS decisions are made. I used to wonder if he was genuinely this delusional or just plain full of crap. Either way, it's a bad look.

My uncle knows him personally (more so his wife). And it's basically Roberts nightmare for the court to be seen as political during his tenure. So, I'd lean towards delusional

 

[AWRTR]

Interesting idea. As the manager you'd probably still have to know some information about the person but I think you could get away with not knowing the name.

You wouldn't need to know anything really. Their job is to make the client as much money as possible, the end. Maximize profits. If they want to be more conservative in their investments a questionnaire could be filled out to assess how risk-averse the client might be.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

You wouldn't need to know anything really. Their job is to make the client as much money as possible, the end. Maximize profits. If they want to be more conservative in their investments a questionnaire could be filled out to assess how risk-averse the client might be.

Actually, you would need to know their investment horizon. Which means you’d need to know the age and the answers to some specific questions.

For most people, 67 or 70 minus their age is a good proxy. Generally speaking, the longer the time horizon, the more heavily weighted in equities you’d be.

That’s why the investment portfolio of most 35-year-olds should look entirely different from that of a 65-year-old who plans to retire in two years.

But individual circumstances vary, and those assumptions don’t always hold.

So in order to know the true investment horizon, you’d need to know both age and any circumstances that could make the specific investor’s horizon shorter or longer than is usually true for the given chronological age.

Also, the goal isn’t simply to make the most money. It’s really to achieve the highest risk-adjusted return over the course of the investment horizon. As you get closer to the horizon, the way you accomplish that evolves significantly.

At a ridiculous extreme, if the goal were just to make the most money, you’d pay your regular monthly bills. Then take every dime left over and buy lottery tickets.

 

[RollTide_HTTR]

Actually, you would need to know their investment horizon. Which means you’d need to know the age and the answers to some specific questions.

For most people, 67 or 70 minus their age is a good proxy. Generally speaking, the longer the time horizon, the more heavily weighted in equities you’d be.

That’s why the investment portfolio of most 35-year-olds should look entirely different from that of a 65-year-old who plans to retire in two years.

But individual circumstances vary, and those assumptions don’t always hold.

So in order to know the true investment horizon, you’d need to know both age and any circumstances that could make the specific investor’s horizon shorter or longer than is usually true for the given chronological age.

Also, the goal isn’t simply to make the most money. It’s really to achieve the highest risk-adjusted return over the course of the investment horizon. As you get closer to the horizon, the way you accomplish that evolves significantly.

At a ridiculous extreme, if the goal were just to make the most money, you’d pay your regular monthly bills. Then take every dime left over and buy lottery tickets.

I think part of the solution is politicians shouldn't be able to buy or sell individual stocks. They should probably only be able to invest in something like an ETF or mutual fund portfolio.

The issue would be if they already own a large position but in that case there isn't much you could do except force them to divest over a period of time.

 

[jthomas666]

It's a sad state of affairs when the SCOTUS needs oversight - but the elected body that can be the check / balance is as, if not more corrupt.

Sickens me that we've gotten to the point where it appears MOST people in DC - elected OR appointed - are happy to 'serve' but only because they have access to the benefits and luxuries the average US citizen does not.

Greed for money and power is not just a problem in the free market. It's infected our federal political system to the degree they don't even try to hide it anymore.

The rampant greed is disgusting.

And more keeps coming to light...

Clarence Thomas’s $267,230 R.V. and the Friend Who Financed It

The vehicle is a key part of the justice’s just-folks persona. It’s also a luxury motor coach that was funded by someone else’s money.

www.nytimes.com

His Prevost Marathon cost $267,230, according to title history records obtained by The New York Times. And Justice Thomas, who in the ensuing years would tell friends how he had scrimped and saved to afford the motor coach, did not buy it on his own. In fact, the purchase was underwritten, at least in part, by Anthony Welters, a close friend who made his fortune in the health care industry.

He provided Justice Thomas with financing that experts said a bank would have been unlikely to extend — not only because Justice Thomas was already carrying a lot of debt, but because the Marathon brand’s high level of customization makes its used motor coaches difficult to value.
In an email to The Times, Mr. Welters wrote: “Here is what I can share. Twenty-five years ago, I loaned a friend money, as I have other friends and family. We’ve all been on one side or the other of that equation. He used it to buy a recreational vehicle, which is a passion of his.” Roughly nine years later, “the loan was satisfied,” Mr. Welters added. He subsequently sent The Times a photograph of the original title bearing his signature and a handwritten “lien release” date of Nov. 22, 2008.

 

[twofbyc]

Alito says Congress has ‘no authority’ to regulate Supreme Court

Justice Samuel Alito said Congress has “no authority” to regulate the Supreme Court in an interview with the Wall Street Journal’s opinion section published Friday, pushing back against Democ…

thehill.com

Another op/ed in the WSJ (which is paywalled).

The sheer arrogance on display is astounding.

But surprising to absolutely no one. Alito is a scumbag.

 

[jthomas666]

For the love of Christ...

Clarence Thomas’ 38 Vacations: The Other Billionaires Who Have Treated the Supreme Court Justice to Luxury Travel

This article first appeared at ProPublica. ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative...

talkingpointsmemo.com

If the Dems had any sense (Narrator: They don't), they'd make ethics for the Supreme Court AND Congress (no direct stock purchases, for one thing) a key part of their platform.

 

[TexasBama]

Clarence Thomas Secretly Participated in Koch Network Donor Events

Thomas has attended at least two Koch donor summits, putting him in the extraordinary position of having helped a political network that has brought multiple cases before the Supreme Court.

www.propublica.org

 

[NationalTitles18]

Clarence Thomas Secretly Participated in Koch Network Donor Events

Thomas has attended at least two Koch donor summits, putting him in the extraordinary position of having helped a political network that has brought multiple cases before the Supreme Court.

www.propublica.org

 

[jthomas666]

CJ Roberts is probably upping his blood pressure meds.

 

[twofbyc]

Amen.
My idea is to encourage those who want to make a lot of money to go elsewhere (beside office-holding in DC) to do it.
I want to folks holding office to truly understand that they are public servants.

The mountains of money you can make in Congress attract scum the way poop draws flies.

They view it as “self-service”, not public service.
And I cannot help but think the generational wealth being passed on is a source of the problem. The office-holders in DC, for the most part, are a) wealthy before they assume their office or b) forever beholden to the wealthy for being “allowed the privilege”. Until the control money has over who holds office is removed, nothing will change. At least, not for the better in regards to the general public.