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?

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.

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.

.

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.

JohnM Says:

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.

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?

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.

PEACE

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.

JohnM Says:
ralph the wonder locust Says:

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?

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.

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.

There’s that failure to connect with the “reality-based” world again.

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.