Four Right-Wing Supreme Court Justices Argue That Buying Off A Judge Is No Problem
Four Right-Wing Supreme Court Justices Argue That Buying Off A Judge Is No Problem
When West Virginia coal overlord Don Blankenship’s company lost a $50 million verdict to one of its competitors, Blankenship set out to buy a judge. Rather than appeal his case to a fair tribunal, Blankenship spent $3 million to elect a friendly lawyer to the West Virginia Supreme Court, even running ads accusing the lawyer’s opponent of voting to free an incarcerated child rapist, and of allowing that rapist to work in a public school. Once elected by a Blankenship-funded campaign, the newly-minted justice cast the deciding vote overturning the verdict against Blankenship’s company.
Today, the Supreme Court held that this kind of justice-for-sale bribery has no place under the United States Constitution. But all four of the Court’s most conservative members voted that there is no problem when a wealthy businessman literally buys a judge. In a dissent joined by conservative justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts argued that this decision — on a case so egregious that John Grisham turned it into a legal thriller — would encourage “groundless” charges that other “judges are biased”:
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.
Although the result in this narrowly-decided case hinges on the vote of retiring Justice David Souter, it appears that Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor agrees with Souter that judges cannot be for sale. In a 1996 speech, Sotomayor argued that “[w]e would never condone private gifts to judges about to decide a case implicating the gift-givers’ interests,” yet “our system of election financing permits extensive private, including corporate, financing of candidates’ campaigns, raising again and again the question what the difference is between contributions and bribes.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
“our system of election financing permits extensive private, including corporate, financing of candidates’ campaigns, raising again and again the question what the difference is between contributions and bribes.”
Yet another reason regressive cave-dwellers will vote against her.
June 8th, 2009 at 11:47 amWTF?!!!
June 8th, 2009 at 11:48 amwondering why Obama doesn’t prosecute Bush war criminals?
this is why.
June 8th, 2009 at 11:48 amEqual Justice ?
Perhaps rather than covering her bare chest, Ashcroft should have noted that the lady statue was blindfolded and had a pair of scales.
June 8th, 2009 at 11:55 amNew oxymoron: Free market jurisprudence.
June 8th, 2009 at 11:55 amCan the right wing be any more obvious is its hatred of “the little guy” and its support of all things corporate?
June 8th, 2009 at 11:59 amJust wow. Not only do we have a law enforcement system that can’t decide to investigate and prosecute admitted war criminals, a legal system that accepts that illegal behavior as long as it is effective but now we have 4 SCOTUS judges who think buying judges is ok.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:00 pmWell, at least we now know where Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts stand on prostitution. But, then, it was always pretty obvious that they were a bunch of whores.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:01 pmMassey coal buys a judge and the roberts’ majority see nothing wrong.
Praying for thomas, alito, roberts or scalia to retire.
By the way, I’m halfway through Grishom’s “The Appeal” and this is a bizarre example of life imitating art, imitating life.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:01 pm‘that illegal behavior is legal’ Oops.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:01 pmThe same minority, plus that feculent, reeking, drooling, suppurating slag Sandra Day O’Connor, installed Bush.
Soo-prahz!
June 8th, 2009 at 12:01 pmAmerican Justice may truly be dead. Tre3ason, torture, kidnapping, and murder go unpunished and judges are bought.
Democracy? Doesn’t smell like it to me.
Long live unregulated capitalism! Please, save the wealthy!
June 8th, 2009 at 12:02 pmMakes me wonder who got campaign contribribes to give Dubya the win in 2000…
June 8th, 2009 at 12:02 pmObviously, the infamous four – Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas,have no problem with with the US legal system becoming known by the slogan: “The best justice money can buy”
June 8th, 2009 at 12:03 pmThe end result will do far more to erode public confidence in judicial impartiality…
Like that existed anyway.
Besides, how do you think they got there… Hey, does that mean we get to kick them off of the SCOTUS? It would be hilarious if 5 of them ruled that the other 4 had to go.
.
The problem with campaign contributions is exactly this – although it’s illegal to pay an elected official to agree with you, it’s perfectly legal to find someone who already agrees with you and then pay to get them elected.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:03 pmLawyers are lobbyists that make millions…so why not judges!!
/snark
June 8th, 2009 at 12:03 pmQuestion, what four justices are, or have been, members of the federalist society?
June 8th, 2009 at 12:04 pmSad to see the employment of the right wing “logic” that pointing out corrupt acts by elected officials is so bad for morale that it should not be allowed while doing nothing to prevent or correct such bad acts employed by a large chunk of the Supreme Court. Today I choose to be happy that the dissent was not the majority view. The good guys finally won a round.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:15 pmThis is not a surprise…these four are consistent corporatists…it’s a shame that their corporatist ideology wasn’t the focus at their confirmation hearings…
June 8th, 2009 at 12:18 pmIt’s not just judges, last week the TN House very narrowly defeated a bill that would have increased selenium levels allowed in TN waters. It was filed at the request of National Coal Co., which is facing a lawsuit from environmental groups over pollution. The bill’s sponsor, from Eats TN, admits he filed the bill at the request of National Coal.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:21 pmShould surprise no one that the ‘Four Fascist’ justices don’t value judicial independence, and are OK with having elected judges bought and paid for by Corporatocracy.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:22 pmMaybe they should change the motto on the Supreme Court building from “Equal Justice under Law” to “Equal Justice in Twelve Low Monthly Payments.”
June 8th, 2009 at 12:29 pmand this is supposed to be shocking?
right wingers have always felt that their money means they don’t have to play by the rules
June 8th, 2009 at 12:30 pmThis strikes me as a logical extension of the absurd idea that campaign contributions are constitutionally-protected “free speech”.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:31 pmThe intellectual dishonesty of “conservative” judges is appalling. Most of them are right wing activists from the bench.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:31 pmChuck Feney Says: New oxymoron: Free market jurisprudence.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:32 pm—-
…and I think we should let the markets decide the going rate for an appeals court judge.
I read Grisham’s book The Appeal and while it was fiction it was a fairly true depiction of what happens in supreme court elections. A judge should not have to politic for his or her seat. Judges should be appointed and go through a nomination process of a bi-partisan panel. Corporate greed and special interests will spend a ton of money to get somebody elected and then that judge will be in debt to them.
By the way the book was great, but it ended horribly.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:33 pmThe Four Horseman of Dumbfukistan:
Roberts
June 8th, 2009 at 12:36 pmAlito
Thomas
Scalia
typical right wing behavior
lie, cheat, steal
June 8th, 2009 at 12:38 pmKeep in mind, these are the people who think greed is good.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:44 pmI’ll bet that bribed judge could have benefited from a little empathy.
progressnotcongress.org
June 8th, 2009 at 12:49 pmChief Justice Roberts says this case: would
June 8th, 2009 at 12:53 pmencourage “groundless” charges that other “judges are biased”.
I say 3 million dollars is cause for a LOT of bias.
The CONservative justices once again show their
kowtowing to big money. The fools!
ralph the wonder locust Says:
This strikes me as a logical extension of the absurd idea that campaign contributions are constitutionally-protected “free speech”.
Or considering corporations to have the same rights as citizens.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:53 pmThe process of attempting to “buy” judges is not only done by the right. As John Grisham showed in his novel liberal judges have the same thing done by trial lawyers. They all donate a great deal to get the judges they want to get elected. The problem is that the corporations have more money so they can buy a lot more advertising. The system needs to be fixed. To say that one party or side bought the election is misleading because it is done on both sides. Judges should not have to go through elections. Sitting judges do not have the time to campaign and they should not make promises in elections to raise funds, especially on cases that have not even been to their court yet.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:54 pmconservative justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts argued that this decision would open the door to unbiased decisions, which would be terrible for the Republic Fascist Party.
Why are conservatives criminal, and why do they not see that they are?
Oh, that’s right, forgot…IOKIARDI
June 8th, 2009 at 12:55 pmAs John Grisham showed in his novel liberal judges have the same thing done by trial lawyers.
JohnM basis his thinking on fiction – again.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:56 pmlivelongandprosper Says:
——————————————————————————–
As John Grisham showed in his novel liberal judges have the same thing done by trial lawyers.
JohnM basis his thinking on fiction – again.
on a case so egregious that John Grisham turned it into a legal thriller
So it can be used to push the point of the left, but if another perspective uses it then it is not allowed?
Do you believe that trial lawyers don’t spend a lot of money to try and get somebody elected?
June 8th, 2009 at 1:00 pmon a case so egregious that John Grisham turned it into a legal thriller
Excellent extension. Quite right.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:04 pmWow. JohnM said something I agree with.
I wonder if JohnM spoke up and objected when his conservative brethren were assailing the qualifications of “unelected judges” to overturn “the will of the people”?
June 8th, 2009 at 1:06 pmThe Chief Justice has a point.
Taking it a step further, prosecuting Scott Roeder for the murder of a gynecologist would encourage “groundless” charges that other “people who kill are murderers”.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:08 pmMaybe those 4 hucksters were letting it be known that they’re services can be had for a fair sum. Being open minded to capitalist ventures, perhaps pitching that Sham Wow towel would be appropriate side work for the gang of four.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:10 pmyou can always count on right wingers to defend corruption
June 8th, 2009 at 1:21 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Judges should not have to go through elections.
Wow. JohnM said something I agree with.
I wonder if JohnM spoke up and objected when his conservative brethren were assailing the qualifications of “unelected judges” to overturn “the will of the people”?
I don’t care about the gay marriage issue either way. As for electing judges, it creates a system built on favors and special interests. Judges should be above all that.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:24 pm@JohnM:
There’s that failure to connect with the “reality-based” world again.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:30 pmAccording to the Wall Street Journal: The Supreme Court’s four-member liberal wing joined the moderate conservative Mr. Kennedy in ruling against Massey.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:30 pmhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB124447000965394255.html
Okay Proud, you’ve made a reasonable argument – but what is the remedy in this case?
If Congress enacted a “recusal law” to allow litigants to sue when they believe there was a conflict of interest, I would think the impact on the legal system would be similarly worse-off.
A minimalist approach would be to enact strict(er) campaign finance laws, to limit the ability of any one person or organization to “buy access.” But I suspect that conservatives (on and off the bench) would disagree.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:46 pmwell that’s good, because my point was not ABOUT gay marriage.
it was about ignorance of the design of the judicial system that allowed conservatives to complain about “unelected judges” interpreting the law in ways that they didn’t like.
Since you don’t care either way about the issue that was decided, but you DO believe judges SHOULD be unelected so as to be immune from political considerations, I would have expected you to raise this same objection then, with your friends.
Did you?
June 8th, 2009 at 1:47 pmElected v. Appointed.
They both have their problems. Appointed judges are appointed by the least trustworthy members of society. Elected judges are chosen by citizens in an environment where financial strength can be used to misinform and influence voters.
Both have their pros and cons; however, it seems that with elected judges there exists at least a (very) small chance that a jurisdiction will have a judge who isn’t beholden to a financial interest or a policy maker.
In either event the job will seldom, if ever, go to the best man or woman.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:56 pmThis just goes to show…
June 8th, 2009 at 2:01 pm“History is written by those that can afford to write it”
They would be wise to refrain from suggesting Grisham storylines when it comes to SCOTUS because I remember well “The Pelican Brief”.
PEACE
June 8th, 2009 at 2:03 pmThis dissent by the conservative neocon justices brings up another question. Have they all been bought?
June 8th, 2009 at 2:20 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
ralph the wonder locust Says:
JohnM Says:
Judges should not have to go through elections.
Wow. JohnM said something I agree with.
I wonder if JohnM spoke up and objected when his conservative brethren were assailing the qualifications of “unelected judges” to overturn “the will of the people”?
I don’t care about the gay marriage issue either way.
well that’s good, because my point was not ABOUT gay marriage.
it was about ignorance of the design of the judicial system that allowed conservatives to complain about “unelected judges” interpreting the law in ways that they didn’t like.
Since you don’t care either way about the issue that was decided, but you DO believe judges SHOULD be unelected so as to be immune from political considerations, I would have expected you to raise this same objection then, with your friends.
Did you?
This is the first I have heard of it. But it is not the same issue as what is being talked about is buying judges. Their argument is that someobdy appoints them and the people don’t get to choose them. While on the surface their idea sounds great, let the people choose, in reality judges can be corrupted by money and special interests just like anybody else. So they should be above the politcs of pandering for votes and raising money for their campaign.
I guess one way around it is to have a publically funded election where only a certain amount can be used by the candidates for their campaign. But of course that would mean that other organizations would just run ads without the message saying that the candidate approves the message.
June 8th, 2009 at 2:25 pm‘Justice’ Scalia made his opinion know on this subject when he failed to recuse himself from a decision involving Cheney. Apparently, spending some private time together at a hunting lodge did not constitute a conflict of interest for Scalia, who was able to objectively and fairly evaluate the matter at hand without being the least bit influenced by his close relationship with Cheney.
June 8th, 2009 at 2:39 pmHe decided in Cheney’s favor, by the way.
How is that not the same issue?
It’s exactly the same issue — judges need to be above the fray of common politics. It’s why our federal judiciary was set up the way it is.
You made this exact point, but for some reason you’re reluctant to apply it to your side when they whine about “unelected judges” doing their jobs as designed.
All you have to do is say, “conservatives are wrong when they complain about “unelected judges”, because judges should be above the corrupting influence of partisan politics”.
Is that so hard?
June 8th, 2009 at 3:14 pmThank God this article leads with the word “Four” instead of “Five.”
.
JohnM Says:
The process of attempting to “buy” judges is not only done by the right. As John Grisham showed in his novel liberal judges have the same thing done by trial lawyers. They all donate a great deal to get the judges they want to get elected.
Having a broader base of smaller-donation political support leaves you beholden to no one. Having a single industrialist foot the bill for your entire campaign leaves you in his pocket. No, it’s pretty much just the right wing that has broadly systematic corruption in this regard. K Street much?
.
Proud Says:
So what is the outcome of this. If you donate any amount to a Judicial campaign then that judge is elected he/she can not hear your case? Will a one dollar contribution lead to bias, or is it 5, 10 or 100 dollars. I agree that the judge in this case should have recused himself, but this is going to lead to a legal mess, thousands of defense attorneys are salivating over this decision.
I’d have to take a much closer look at precisely how the majority opinion was ruled and what the benchmarks are before I started spouting something like that. But then again, I’m not a Republican.
.
wisdomofwords Says:
This dissent by the conservative neocon justices brings up another question. Have they all been bought?
That’s what I’m taking away from this – an admission that they got there the same way. And/or a for-sale sign on the SCOTUS.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:57 pmWow, Pee, you have earned such a reputation as a sterling political and legal thinker here, why would anyone NOT just accept your interpretation of a Supreme Court dissent written by the neocon wing?
June 8th, 2009 at 4:05 pmConservativeForProgress Says:
This is a blatantly dishonest post by ThinkProgress. Did you even read the dissent?
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-22.pdf
The dissent was not that “buying off a judge is no problem.” Obviously, buying off a jduge is a problem. Rather, the dissent in Caperton argued that the majority opinion failed to provide adequate guidance as to at least 40 issues regarding when recusal will be constitutionally required.
True that is their argument; however, you overlook the fact that the argument was contained in the dissent and not a concurrence.
The fact that it was a DISSENT means that the conservative justices did not vote to reverse the appeals court. Regardless of their reasoning, had they been in the majority the ruling of the appeals court would have been AFFIRMED.
June 8th, 2009 at 6:31 pmThere is some unfair mischaracterization here. The dissent takes no position on whether it is OK to buy a judge. It says that asking if a judge has been bought will “erode public confidence in judicial impartiality.”
It’s sort of like the problem of pedophilia that a certain prominent Christian denomination is struggling with. The denomination would never say that pedophilia is OK. But it does say that investigating accusations of pedophilia is bad, because it will be harmful to the church.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:59 amKenInIL Says:
There is some unfair mischaracterization here. The dissent takes no position on whether it is OK to buy a judge. It says that asking if a judge has been bought will “erode public confidence in judicial impartiality.”
It’s sort of like the problem of pedophilia that a certain prominent Christian denomination is struggling with. The denomination would never say that pedophilia is OK. But it does say that investigating accusations of pedophilia is bad, because it will be harmful to the church.
I think you misunderstand the implied meaning of the Dissent. “Conservative for progress” took the position that the conservative justices merely disagreed with the rule, or lack thereof.
If a justice merely disagreed with the rule or reasoning, the argument would be contained in a concurrence, meaning in this case that the judge should have recused himself. But that is not what happened. Yes, the dissent may have criticized the lack of a formulated standard to address future interests but the signifigance lies in the fact that the argument was in a dissent. By placing the argument in the dissent, the justices without saying a word, assert that they do not agree the case should be REVERSED AND REMANDED. A dissent in this situation is a vote to AFFIRM the lower court.
How else can one interpret a vote to AFFIRM the lower court in this case than to conclude that the actions of the judge and respondent are acceptable?
June 9th, 2009 at 12:19 pmJeeze – this guy looks like the evil saloon owner in every western made between 1940 and 1965.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:35 pm