U. S. Supreme Court Says No One Should Be Able To Buy Their Own Judge. Kentuckians: Are You Listening?

Read more here.

Knock, knock.

Anyone in Kentucky listening?

Update: Here is the text of the Supreme Court's opinion. The case is CAPERTON ET AL. vs. A. T. MASSEY COAL CO., INC. .

Enjoy the reading, particularly the wise observation by Justice Anthony Kennedy:

The proper inquiry centers on the contribution’s relative size in comparison to the total amount contributed to the campaign, the total amount spent in the election, and the apparent effect of the contribution on the outcome. It is not whether the contributions were a necessary and sufficient cause of Benjamin’s victory. In an election decided by fewer than 50,000votes, Blankenship’s campaign contributions—compared to the total amount contributed to the campaign, as well as the total amount spent in the election—had a significant and disproportionate influence on the outcome.

And the risk that Blankenship’s influence engendered actual bias is sufficiently substantial that it “must be for-bidden if the guarantee of due process is to be adequately implemented.” Ibid. The temporal relationship between the campaign contributions, the justice’s election, and the pendency of the case is also critical, for it was reasonably foreseeable that the pending case would be before the newly elected justice. There is no allegation of a quid pro quo agreement, but the extraordinary contributions were made at a time when Blankenship had a vested stake in the outcome. Just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, similar fears of bias can arise when—without the other parties’ consent—a man chooses the judge in his own cause. Applying this principle to the judicial election process, there was here a serious, objective risk of actual bias that required Justice Benjamin’s recusal.

In as much as I like Chief Justice John Roberts, I am disappointed that he came up with this drivel in his dissent, joined by the other Conservatives.

While I understand the Chief's concerns as outlined in the questions he posed to the majority regarding clarity of the opinion (see the litany of 40 questions starting on page 28 and ending on page 40 of the opinion), unlike him, I see the majority's opinion as providing more of a "cure" that is better than "the disease" of buying justice.

Today, however, the Court enlists the Due Process Clause to overturn a judge’s failure to recuse because of a“probability of bias.” Unlike the established grounds for disqualification, a “probability of bias” cannot be defined in any limited way. The Court’s new “rule” provides no guidance to judges and litigants about when recusal will be constitutionally required. This will inevitably lead to an increase in allegations that judges are biased, however groundless those charges may be. The end result will do far more to erode public confidence in judicial impartiality than an isolated failure to recuse in a particular case.

There is a “presumption of honesty and integrity in those serving as adjudicators.” Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U. S. 35, 47 (1975). All judges take an oath to uphold the Constitution and apply the law impartially, and we trust that they will live up to this promise.

I also do not buy Justice Antonio Scalia's dire prediction that "[t]his course was urged upon us on grounds that it would preserve the public’s confidence in the judicial system [but t] he decision will have the opposite effect."

Indeed, the Majority's opinion will have the desired effect of "preser[ving] the public's confidence in the judicial", because the public will know that anyone intending to buy justice can NOW (becuase of this opinion) be STOPPED.

Hence, I say: may Justice Anthony Kennedy never depart from the Court. He seems to be a NEEDED voice of moderation on the court and common sense.

Enough said.