@marklyda: The Monsanto Justice. --- Follow for more. --- Sources: Mullin v. Doe, 609 U.S. ___ (2026). Stern, Scott W. "The Justice from Monsanto: The Environmental Life and Law of Clarence Thomas." Harvard Environmental Law Review, vol. 46, no. 1, 2022, pp. 67–120. --- #elections #vote #trump #midterms #scotus --- Education and entertainment only—not legal advice. Personal views only—no Air Force endorsement.#tiktokgrowthchallenge

Gromp :

how does this not count as a conflict of interest?

Delilah-GetMe814 :

Well the Supreme Court has proved itself worthless

Brenna Nycole :

How is this not a conflict of interest?? Are Supreme Court justices just immune from that like congress and the senate are immune from insider trading??

Sammy Jo | Sneaker Customizer :

Clarence thomas has never been one for “binding ethics”

Marci Katherine :

TikTok literally hiding your newest video! Won’t let me comment or like cuz it’s “under review”.

lazybeachofficial :

Shouldn’t he have recused himself for conflict of interest?

NaloSavo :

The Supreme Court needs binding ethics rules. We can not rely on the integrity of individual Supreme Court justices who appear to not be operating in the interest of the people but for the corporations and billionaires/trillionaires!

Snowelf :

And this is getting no views typical

Irving :

Don’t get me wrong ethics should have force him to recuse himself but the ruling passed by a 7-2 majority and was based of on whether federal law preempts state law claims.

Avery Nate :

Even if congress passes a bill to put checks and balances on the Supreme Court, what happens when someone challenges that bill and it ends up in court, it’s going to just end straight up at the Supreme Court again and they will just turn say it’s unconstitutional. The only way we can put checks and balances on them is through a constitutional amendment.

47SMC :

I won’t even refer to him as justice that would be an oxymoron

Skarloey :

SCROTUS

Edoc :

the question is if we can do something about it though. aside from relying on congressmen who almost never vote based on what the people want and only on their own interests

BonBon :

This is not the first nor the last time one of the justices has not recused themselves as they should. Ethics? What are those?

lspeed63 :

Vicky Goddard :

This is HORRIFIC

danigirlpdx35 :

if course he did!

mattbdev :

100% agree. At the bare minimum it should require Justices to recuse themselves in cases such as this.

LuciaBlood95 :

At this point are we surprised?

Boujee Pets HTX :

I wonder how much Monsanto pay just a little and other conservative judges

JustJimmy :

Really? That explains everything

ACooper87 :

so therefore this ruling is void. this is a disgrace to law in so many ways. he needs to be taken off the bench and this case needs to be redone once he is go e.

whatsmykidsnameagain :

How on earth can a judge who used to work for the company that is being sued be allowed to preside over the case when us commoners couldn’t sit on a jury if that was the case !

Alan Harvey :

time to refile as its a conflict of interest