Sooo... a conflict of interest? Say it ain't so!
(Nothing's going to happen since the Pedo-in-Chief and most of the Gov is just as corrupt)
this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2026
324 points (99.7% liked)
Climate
8366 readers
164 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
As I mentioned before, Alito has recused himself over this from some cases in the past, but not so far on this one
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who had recused himself in a prior petition in the Boulder case (possibly because he owned stock in ConocoPhillips) did not indicate that he would be recusing himself from the case. ConocoPhillips, which is not named in the Boulder case, is a defendant in other climate lawsuits.
Members of Congress shouldn't own stock, neither should Supreme Court Justices. It's effectively a life appointment, they are well compensated, and there's obvious conflicts of interest. Money and justice don't mix well.
They should be allowed to invest in broad index funds. Shit that goes up when the economy is good and down when it's bad.
And maybe gvt bonds.
Yes. That’s the easier solution.
The harder solution is maybe we shouldn’t have 9 people appointed by the most powerful person in the country for life have that much power. It’s not very democratic.
Or any politician...
Alito’s individual stock portfolio
His what now?
One issue we have now isn't exactly insider trading: it's that insider trading has been happening for so long that it feels like simply requiring no conflicts of interest, as should be standard operating procedure, now feels like inventing an entirely new system.
And of course, we have to contend with all the people who are worried about disenfranching the people in these positions.
Or, maybe, just maybe: the people who should be representing the public and running the country are those who would do so without worrying about their self-enrichment first.
Feature, not a bug. Supreme Court is openly corrupt.
We can make it into a bug if we're able to pressure him into recusing himself.
I fear those days are long gone
It's almost like high level public servants shouldn't be allowed to own stock...
I think it was Technology Connection's Alec who pointed out something I never thought of. When he talked with people about oil, he realized that he had a preconception that oil was a stepping stone. He assumed that everyone agreed that at some point THE goal in energy production is to replace oil, not add more power sources to it. When he said that, my matching bias was suddenly put in the spotlight. Since then I've wondered how people like Alito don't see this as the obvious next step.
that was such a good video.
Public servants shouldn't be allowed to own stock, except maybe through some sort of arm's length diversified portfolio managed by a third party. Like, you can put money in Vanguard's index funds, but you can't pick individual stocks. Maybe. I would also accept that you just aren't allowed to own stock. Put your money in government bonds or something.
You mean design policy to prevent corruption!?
a·li·to /ˌʌˈli toʊ/ v.
To act with abject incompetency, such as to draw question regarding fitness and ability concerning not just the current moment but respecting the subject at large
Most bribery happens where insiders just tell politicians which stocks to buy
That's why the court declared Trump tariff illegal, because the judges obviously own stocks and hated it when their portfolio went down.
I see nothing wrong here, move along citizen nudges with an electric prod
Just sell it. 1 phone call.
So long a he holds it, he is supposed to recuse himself from cases that affect those stocks. This has meant one less vote in the Supreme Court in favor of the oil industry
Has he actually done that though?
In the past, yes, but not this time
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who had recused himself in a prior petition in the Boulder case (possibly because he owned stock in ConocoPhillips) did not indicate that he would be recusing himself from the case. ConocoPhillips, which is not named in the Boulder case, is a defendant in other climate lawsuits.
Nolito
Delito
Tolito
Tolito, talito... What's the difference!