Supreme Court Ethics Act of 2013
1 Comment
Leave a comment
Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.
The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.
Related Entries:
- Fish-nancial Fraud
- The Ramifications of EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P.
- On the Supreme Court cert docket (II): Limelight v. Akamai
- Update on BAMN
- The Bond That Ties: A Case-Study in Federalism
- The Unconscionability of California's "Amendable" Arbitration Agreements
- TLI Update: Supreme Court To Hear Patent Troll Cases
- Businessweek on class actions
- In the Matter of McCutcheon: The Merits of Campaign-Finance "Aggregation"
- "A Facebook Deal That Needs Unfriending"
- The cy pres morass and In re BankAmerica Corp. Securities Litigation
- CEI, Cato, and PLF weigh in on Mount Holly
- Marek v. Lane & Dry Max Pampers in today's NY Times
- Epstein on the pro-business Supreme Court myth
![]() |
Rafael Mangual Project Manager, Legal Policy rmangual@manhattan-institute.org |
![]() |
Communications Manhattan Institute communications@manhattan-institute.org |
Would this mean Justice Ginsburg can no longer accept honors (unlike the fed society where the justices just attended events) from the ACLU?