The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday divided 5-4 on ideological lines - liberals and moderates on side and conservatives on the other - in deciding what ought to have been a simple case from West Virginia, Caperton et al v. A.T. Massey Coal Co,, Inc., et al.
Yes, folks, if someone makes a $3 million campaign contribution to a judge, and that judge turns around later and casts the deciding vote in favor of the campaign contributor, it does look like a conflict of interest for the judge and he should have recused himself.
You think? Yes, anybody concerned about the appearance of justice would so think. Little Nelly and her dog Et Al would so think.
Unfortunately, the conservatives justices were less concerned about justice and more concerned about process. They worried that making the just decision might lead to an inexact rule open to interpretation - which, of course, is possible.
But it is also possible that future judges might have the ability to make reasonable distinctions, especially if the alleged abuses before them were as shocking as the Massey Energy case.
In a separate little dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia provided this little gem to confirm that he really isn't in the justice business. Please note the sarcasm that attends the suggestion that Supreme Court justices might actually be there to do some good.
"The Court today continues its quixotic quest to right all wrongs and repair all imperfections through the Constitution. Alas, the quest cannot succeed - which is why some wrongs and imperfections have been called nonjusticiable."
Right all wrongs and imperfections? Heaven forbid! Yet five justices with a more heightened sense of justice did repair the wrongs and imperfection obvious in this case.
Tell me the joke again -- the one about only liberals making activist judges.
Posted
Jun 09 2009, 06:17 PM
by
Reg Henry