But it’s not just federal judges that this will apply to; it also applies to “at-risk individuals,” meaning their children, their family members, or simply someone living at the same residence. Federal judges and other “at-risk individuals” could ask for the name of an employer or the employer’s address to be removed—pretty important information if you’re interested in holding a judge accountable for conflicts of interests and potential financial benefits.
“At any given time there are 1,200 to 1,400 federal judges and they are each expected to conduct themselves ethically. But there is no internal watchdog who is helping them figure out if they’re doing that,” Gabe Roth, the executive director of Fix the Court, told Jezebel. “If there’s information about them being censored from the internet, it makes it harder to make sure these public officials are conducting themselves above board.
Menendez tried to head off criticism that censoring this type of information could ultimately protect them from reasonable inquiry,, “In no way does our bill prevent journalists from reporting on matters of public concern.” But I, for one, do not trust this conservative judiciary—which would, realistically, ultimately decide how broadly this measure is interpreted—to take that to heart.
Huh ? Governance at spheres should be transparent.