298
submitted 1 year ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

One rainy day in April 2019, my phone buzzed and the caller ID lit up with “Supreme Court.” I stared at the two words for a moment. Was I in trouble?

Then I remembered.

A few months earlier, I’d sent Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor a letter inviting her to speak at the Mississippi Book Festival, which runs every August. Our offer was the same as it had been for other authors: a $250 stipend, a ride to and from the airport and a large, appreciative audience. In addition, we would purchase 1,500 copies of Sotomayor’s books to give to students. Could the justice please travel to Jackson, Miss., to talk to kids for two days? In the hottest time of the year?

My rainy-day call was a response from her assistant, Anh Le.

I have lately been double-checking my communications with Le in light of the Associated Press report saying Sotomayor’s staff “has often prodded public institutions that have hosted the justice to buy her memoir or children’s books, works that have earned her at least $3.7 million since she joined the court in 2009.” Like many Americans, I’m appalled by reports of private jets, yachts, fishing trips and other lavish gifts accepted by some of our Supreme Court justices. I went back to my emails and notes and wondered: Had I “bribed” Justice Sotomayor to come to Mississippi?

I help run a family foundation that focuses on education and literacy, especially for disadvantaged young people. Among the things we support are college scholarships, book groups in prisons, a community reading program and the Mississippi Book Festival — which includes an event called KidsNote, where children can meet featured authors and receive a copy of their books. We look for authors with a new book that will appeal to young readers.

Sotomayor’s “Turning Pages,” aimed at children ages 4 to 8, had come out in 2018. In her 2013 memoir suitable for young adults, “My Beloved World,” Sotomayor wrote about reading and the importance of education in her life, as well as her challenges with diabetes. I was sure that both books would resonate with Mississippi students. During our call, Le said the offer was interesting; the justice had never been to Mississippi. I outlined the potential impact Sotomayor would have on students, noting our state’s high poverty rate and its problem with childhood diabetes.

Le said she would get back to me.

And she did, with a few more questions — details about flight connections, book-signing and so on. I said we would be happy to upgrade her flight. Nope, the publisher was handling her flight. I said we’d be happy to upgrade her hotel room. Nope, the justice was fine with a Marriott, plus her security detail was familiar with the layout.

So far, so good.

Subsequent emails and phone conversations were similar. No, Le said, the justice did not need us to provide lunch or dinner. No, she could not accept the $250 stipend.

Did Le urge me to buy more books? No. She did ask whether we wanted any of the copies of “My Beloved World” to be in Spanish. In fact, we did, and I hadn’t thought to order them.

When Sotomayor came to Jackson, we had her speaking in the sanctuary at Galloway Memorial United Methodist Church, the church where Eudora Welty once worshiped. Backstage, Sotomayor smiled when she saw my clipboard of questions. She helped me with my tote bag full of books. She then clapped her hands together and said something like, “Okay. Here’s what we’re going to do.”

In addition to our planned onstage interview, she said, she wanted the freedom to go off-script. “They’re children,” I recall her saying. “I want to be sure I get to their questions.”

“Perfect,” I said.

So the justice took a seat in one of the side pews and watched as Dav Pilkey, the author and illustrator of “Captain Underpants,” entertained a delighted audience of about a thousand students, drawing cartoons as he spoke. Then, it was our turn on the stage. I asked my clipboard questions and Sotomayor answered. Afterward, she got up and spoke from the heart, walking up and down the aisles.

In answer to the students’ questions, she told them about growing up in Puerto Rico, eating mangoes off the tree, going away to college for the first time and working in a male-dominated court system.

She talked to these kids. She asked them their names, what they liked in school, what they wanted to do with their lives. She hugged them and posed for pictures with them. After she finished, she signed their books and took more pictures.

My success came about because I read,” she told them.

The following morning, we did it all over again for another packed sanctuary, with Sotomayor telling even more personal stories about her life and talking about a civics program she and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch work on. She also gave us homework: Go out and make friends with someone who doesn’t look like you.

My only regret is that we ran out of books. I wish we had ordered more.

There very well might be a culture of poor ethical conduct in the Supreme Court, but there is no moral equivalency between justices accepting rides on private jets to vacation with friends who had cases before the court and Sotomayor talking about her books and her life to a crowd of mesmerized young readers.

The standard royalty rate for authors is less than 10 percent of the sales price. I don’t know anything about Sotomayor’s deal with her publishers, but 10 percent would make her cut of the 1,500 books our foundation purchased approximately $2,250 — for which she had to fly to Mississippi and give two presentations. During the hottest month of the year.

Was that a bribe? You be the judge.

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] thessnake03@lemmy.world 122 points 1 year ago

As a rank and file federal employee, I would have to report this income to my ethics lead, as any income earned outside my posting is subjected to their scrutiny. It's their call to make if there's any conflict of interest.

Why can't we hold our highest officials to the same standards as millions of other federal workers?

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 64 points 1 year ago

I get what you’re saying, but I think the overall point of the article is that this is pretty much nothing in comparison to Thomas. The book purchase was voluntary and not a condition for the visit.

[-] thessnake03@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago

Oh yeah I got the point. And offered my perspective on a system that already exists to help combat any issues of this nature.

If I have to turn my financials over for review like others in government do, seems hypocritical that higher levels don't. They're needs be accountability on all sides

See also Trump tax records. Pelosi et all stock purchases. The list goes on.

[-] Bye@lemmy.world 52 points 1 year ago

Because context.

We are currently trying to hold Thomas to quite low standards of conflict of interest; he did something really really bad (no, not Anita hill), compared to what sotomayor did, which is absolutely nothing by comparison.

Asking to hold Sotomayor to incredibly high standards is a distraction from the issue. It’s in bad faith, it’s whataboutism.

No, we can’t do both, because the public’s and media’s concentration is a finite resource. Even bringing up her books in the same thought as what Thomas did is false equivalence and distraction.

It’s like saying “yes, James stole $10000 from the orphanage. But Jenny jaywalked yesterday, they should both be held accountable”. To anyone but the most fervently autistic (not used as an insult), the implication and motivation for such a statement is blatant.

[-] Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social 25 points 1 year ago

Asking to hold Sotomayor to incredibly high standards is a distraction from the issue. It’s in bad faith, it’s whataboutism.

The article REALLY REALLY REALLY needs to include this point, because I could absolutely see Republicans taking this article and saying "see? The majority of 'bribes' are just technicalities, with the intent of helping children. The Supreme Court doesn't need oversight."

What the article fails to point out is that Sotomayor is a Democrat, and Clarence is a Republican. One side is taking bribes. It's not a problem with the court, it's a problem with the party that has embraced corruption as a moral tenet.

[-] bobthecowboy@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

It is a problem with The Court though. Sure, Sotomayor is classy here, but only because she chose to be. The things coming out about Thomas shouldn't be allowed but no one is functionally capable of doing anything about them, even though we have rules in place for other civil servants - that's the problem with the court.

[-] BassTurd@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

We absolutely can do both. The government does it for millions of employees all of the time. If government contractors can't take any gifts over $25 and have to report extraneous, then the 9 justice are a drop in the bucket. I understand the point of the article, and I personally don't Believe Sotomayor is doing anything unethical in this situation, but they should be held to the same standards as everyone else, and honestly it should be higher standards given the position.

[-] tallwookie@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

millions of other federal workers arent peddling books on the side though. probably a good thing, now that I think about it.

[-] kescusay@lemmy.world 63 points 1 year ago

Given the overwhelmingly negative nature of the news about the conservatives on the court, this is a breath of fresh air. Sotomayor is a class act.

[-] Cobrachickenwing@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

Nobody from the federalist society would even bother with children. All ivy tower academics who only want to talk to their SUPERPAC backers.

[-] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 46 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Was that a bribe? You be the judge.

Just to make sure, let's get a SCOTUS code of ethics.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

And remove the justices determined to have violated it.

[-] DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago

That's far less than the speaking fee Hill-dog got from Goldman Sachs.

I would say this meets the acceptable level of shady things a SC justice could do, and it's way way better than taking money from a billionaire politically connected Nazi memorabilia owner, like Thomas's buddy Harlan Crow.

[-] snooggums@kbin.social 24 points 1 year ago

This was the opposite of shady. She paid her own way to promote education, and even if she got the 2k while paying her own way that would be far lower than most well known authors going rate.

Being a judge doesn't mean she can't do other positive things with her life.

[-] DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Sorry, I just meant my response as a reply to the author's question at the end.

[-] Jackolantern@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

Wow thanks for posting this. What a breath of fresh air.

[-] Reliant1087@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Would book sales of a book you have written years ago be an ethical violation?

You aren't accepting gifts or even making your public speaking or whatever contingent on book sales.

Even if someone did that, say a federal employee who wrote a novel on the side said I can come to a book signing only if you sell 2k books for it to be break even for me and did so during their off hours, what is illegal or unethical about it?

It is also not like you are abusing your power as a federal employee to get people to ask you to speak.

this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2023
298 points (97.2% liked)

politics

18586 readers
4380 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS