Conservative Justices Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas Say Virtually Bribing Judges is Okay
So as we continue the confirmation process of Justice Sotomayor, whose main offense appears to be that she’s empathetic to victims of injustice, consider what the radical right is telling America about the views they’d like to see in a Supreme Court Justice:
Shorter conservatives:
1. A fair trial does not require an impartial judge, let alone the appearance of one.
2. We think our courts should be just as corrupt as our legislatures.
3. We think it should be lawful for judges to rule in cases involving their biggest campaign contributors, when those campaign contributors made the contributions knowing their cases were headed for the court.
4. This is called, “strict construction” or not being an “activist” judge or “calling balls and strikes.” The Founding Fathers would have approved this.
5. Anyone who disagrees with us suffers from empathy.
6. You were surprised by Bush v. Gore?
The majority and the dissenters approach the case from two different perspectives. The majority looks at its role as judges to decide cases and the dissenters look to the Court’s institutional role of creating rules of decision (for the Courts of Appeals and district courts to apply) and a functioning legal system. No doubt the West Virginia Supreme Court Justice was incorrect in his decision not to recuse himself, but whether that amounts to a miscarriage of justice warranting the Supreme Court’s attention is another matter. I think the dissenters strongest point is made in saying the case here just a matter of degree, not kind. The dissenters’ pointing out of the majority’s mumbling, bumbling opinion goes to this. The inability to articulate a clear rule here is not only consequential down the line as it makes a difficult rule to apply. An unclear rule, revising clear rules that have been laid down, suggest the adoption of a wrong rule, a fudging of the existing rule to get at a desired result without a distinguishable basis.
