The notion that a judge should be prohibited from benefiting from the generosity of a close friend when neither such friend nor his generosity has any reasonable or discernable connection with the judge's duties is grounded not in reason but in envy. I also believe you are mistaken about the rules for US Presidents, at least as they pertain to domestic gifts.
The notion that a judge should be prohibited from benefiting from the generosity of a close friend when neither such friend nor his generosity has any reasonable or discernable connection with the judge's duties is grounded not in reason but in envy. I also believe you are mistaken about the rules for US Presidents, at least as they pertain to domestic gifts.
The notion that a judge should be prohibited from benefiting from the generosity of a close friend when neither such friend nor his generosity has any reasonable or discernable connection with the judge's duties is grounded not in reason but in envy. I also believe you are mistaken about the rules for US Presidents, at least as they pertain to domestic gifts.
Envy. Of course. Why didn't I think of that? There couldn't possibly be an ethical concern over this level of gift-giving to the Supremes.