Campaign Money Can Disqualify Judges, Top Court Says

The Supreme Court has just ruled that Judges who have received campaign contributions from those whose cases they are deciding must disqualify themselves from those cases. This case was decided 5-4 along ideological lines.

The case centered on what critics say is a growing problem of judges who at least appear to be beholden to their financial supporters. Thirty-nine states elect at least some of their judges. Candidates for state high courts alone raised more than $168 million from 2000 to 2007, more than double the contributions during the 1990s, according to Justice at Stake, which called for Benjamin’s recusal.

Click to expand...

Actually, while I believe that Justice Benjamin ruled correctly on the case, I think it is a good thing that our courts do not have an appearance of bias, nor should our judges be open to the temptation of being bought. It has happened many times in the past already, and face it. Judges are not God. They are only human, just like the rest of us.

Article is here.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.

Click to expand...

I don't have much to add to that quote.

Edited to add: Well, except that the names of those who think that judges should rule on cases where they have a potential conflict of interest should be known.

Redress said:

I don't have much to add to that quote.

Edited to add: Well, except that the names of those who think that judges should rule on cases where they have a potential conflict of interest should be known.

Click to expand...

Does this mean they 'empathy' towards the color green? :2rofll:

BWG said:

Does this mean they 'empathy' towards the color green? :2rofll:

Click to expand...

Why do people have to make me laugh while I am trying to eat dinner?

Redress said:

I don't have much to add to that quote.

Edited to add: Well, except that the names of those who think that judges should rule on cases where they have a potential conflict of interest should be known.

Click to expand...

Those judges got a -1 from me.

The only concerns I have about this is #1, Is it "Can" or "Must" disqualify? and #2, Who or how is anyone going to know really? If I give a $100 to Judge Knickerbocker in my district because I think he is a good judge, does that all of a sudden disqualify him from being a judge? It seems as if Judicial condidates can no longer have fundraisers.

DarkWizard12 said:

Those judges got a -1 from me.

The only concerns I have about this is #1, Is it "Can" or "Must" disqualify? and #2, Who or how is anyone going to know really? If I give a $100 to Judge Knickerbocker in my district because I think he is a good judge, does that all of a sudden disqualify him from being a judge? It seems as if Judicial condidates can no longer have fundraisers.

Click to expand...

Problem is that more than half of this judge's campaign funds came from the company that wanted the case decided its way.

danarhea said:

Problem is that more than half of this judge's campaign funds came from the company that wanted the case decided its way.

Click to expand...

Seems only natural.

In America, you could buy an audit. Then you could buy a debt rating. Now you can buy a judicial decision. What's next? Buy the presidency? Oh wait. That already happens.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito should all be kicked in the balls for dissenting on this.

HOLY ****

Blankenship spent more than $500,000 in direct support of Benjamin, mostly for television and newspaper advertisements. The Massey executive also donated almost $2.5 million to And For The Sake Of The Kids, an independent group that worked to defeat McGraw and aired a series of ads that accused the justice of voting to release a pedophile.

Blankenship’s spending represented about 60 percent of the $5 million spent on behalf of Benjamin.

Click to expand...