It never occurred to me that the judges that set our laws are so riddled with conflicts. Many of the Supreme Court judges continue to hold stock in companies that they either directly or indirectly must decide on. The Supreme Court is the most important job in the land, and I thought the judges took their jobs seriously. The New York Times had an editorial this Saturday that not only pointed the fallacy of this out, but also mentioned that most blatant abuser is Judge Steven Breyer who holds stock in more than three dozen companies. The editorial points out the many conflicts that have come for the judges who continue to hold stock, and how our nation's legal system is stalled because of it. It definitely seems to me to be a good idea that if you want to be a Supreme Court judge you must agree to divest in your holdings, after all the country is a little bit more important than a little bit more profit. It also was a good idea two years ago when Congress changed the rules for the judges so they had no capital gains tax when they divested in order to avoid conflict. You can read the editorial here.