I have seen this meta-equitable justification for ruling one way or another in my opponent’s legal briefs and in judicial decisions, and it irks my sensiblities so bad, I am struck dumbfounded in trying to describe how bad it is on so many levels.

The first most irksome aspect of it is, the supposedly impartial judge, is ruling in a case based upon how tough his workload will be made by ruling a certain way. As if that has ANY bearing on the substance of the case, or the merits of the arguments/law/facts.
WTF CARES what the adminstrative ramifications will be!?! That is the wrapper of the judicial system, and should have no influence on consideration of the merits of a party’s legal case.

I surprised that a statement like this is ever argued or issued with a straight face. It demonstrates a selfish tunnelvision and small mindedness of the judge or justice.

America is SOOOO screwed with this clown Obama.

‘Its’ posts are irrelevant to the topic, they add nothing but bulk, which adds to the sluggishness of this site. Consider how many ‘good’ posts could occupy the space that the junk occupies.

“I do not believe my impartiality can reasonably be questioned,” Scalia said back in 2004. “If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court Justice can be bought so cheap, the Nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined.”

And it undoubtedly was, and is, at least as far as the Supreme Court and the Republican Party are concerned. Also, please notice that Scalia didn’t deny he had been bought, only that it would be ‘unreasonable’ to think he had been.

GOP now leads Dems by six points on economy in Rasmussen

This is the first time in over two years of polling that the GOP has held the advantage on this issue.

Republicans also now hold a six-point lead on the issue of government ethics and corruption, the second most important issue to all voters and the top issue among unaffiliated voters. That shows a large shift from May, when Democrats held an 11-point lead on the issue…

For the eighth straight month, Republicans lead on national security. The GOP now holds a 51% to 36% lead on the issue, up from a seven-point lead in May. They also lead on the war in Iraq 45% to 37%, after leading by just two points in May and trailing the Democrats in April…

Democrats continue to barely hold the lead on the issues of health care, Social Security and education.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues/trust_on_issues

And we certainly can’t have American citizens demanding an unbiased judiciary, heh, Mr. Chief Justice?

If the CHIEF Justice of the US SUPREME Court isn’t concerned about judicial bias, or more specifically concerned that we citizens might actually want such a radical thing, what does that tell us about HIS/THEIR fears about folks questioning HIS (and Scalia’s, Thomas’ and Alito’s) biases?

This is the first time in over two years of polling that the GOP has held the advantage on this issue.

Republicans also now hold a six-point lead on the issue of government ethics and corruption, the second most important issue to all voters and the top issue among unaffiliated voters. That shows a large shift from May, when Democrats held an 11-point lead on the issue…

For the eighth straight month, Republicans lead on national security. The GOP now holds a 51% to 36% lead on the issue, up from a seven-point lead in May. They also lead on the war in Iraq 45% to 37%, after leading by just two points in May and trailing the Democrats in April…

Democrats continue to barely hold the lead on the issues of health care, Social Security and education.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues/trust_on_issues

Newsweek editor Evan Thomas has created a precious contrast in the media’s approach to presidents Bush and Obama:

“Our job is to bash the president, that’s what we do.” — Evan Thomas responding to a question on whether the media’s unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington, February 2, 2007.

“I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.” – Evan Thomas on Hardball, June 5, 2009.

Quick Take: Evan Thomas vs. Evan Thomas

Newsweek editor Evan Thomas has created a precious contrast in the media’s approach to presidents Bush and Obama:

“Our job is to bash the president, that’s what we do.” — Evan Thomas responding to a question on whether the media’s unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington, February 2, 2007.

“I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.” – Evan Thomas on Hardball, June 5, 2009.

Quick Take: Evan Thomas vs. Evan Thomas

Newsweek editor Evan Thomas has created a precious contrast in the media’s approach to presidents Bush and Obama:

“Our job is to bash the president, that’s what we do.” — Evan Thomas responding to a question on whether the media’s unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington, February 2, 2007.

“I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.” – Evan Thomas on Hardball, June 5, 2009.

President Obama pledged Monday to pump stimulus money into the economy over the next several months as part of a plan to create or save more than 600,000 jobs this summer, though the administration admits that at least 125,000 of those jobs are temporary summer jobs meant for teenagers.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton invites Va. assembly candidate Esam Omeish — who once told crowd ‘jihad way is the way to liberate your land’ — to participate in conference call on bridging divides with Muslims.

The AP has been one of the solidest members of the Democratic Party coalition in recent years. Still, some AP reporters seem to be getting skeptical, as witnessed by today’s headline: “Obama repackages stimulus plans with old promises.”

Some excerpts:

President Barack Obama assured the nation his recovery plan was on track Monday, scrambling to calm Americans unnerved by unemployment rates still persistently rising nearly four months after he signed the biggest economic stimulus in history. …
Neither the acceleration nor the jobs goal are new. Both represent a White House repackaging of promises and projects to blunt criticism that the effects haven’t been worth the historic price tag. And the job estimate is so murky, it can never be verified.

The economy has shed 1.6 million jobs since the stimulus measure was signed in February, far overshadowing White House announcements estimating the effort has saved 150,000 jobs. Public opinion of Obama’s handling of the economy has declined along with the jobs data.

For the first time, the administration admitted the economic forecasts it used to sell the stimulus were overly optimistic.

“At the time, our forecast seemed reasonable,” Vice President Joe Biden’s top economic adviser, Jared Bernstein, said Monday, explaining that the White House underestimated the scope of the recession. “Now, looking back, it was clearly too optimistic.”

Newsweek editor Evan Thomas has created a precious contrast in the media’s approach to presidents Bush and Obama:

“Our job is to bash the president, that’s what we do.” — Evan Thomas responding to a question on whether the media’s unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington, February 2, 2007.

“I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.” – Evan Thomas on Hardball, June 5, 2009.

…

CANON 2: A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES
…

CANON 5: A JUDGE SHOULD REFRAIN FROM POLITICAL ACTIVITY

http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/03/new-judicial-code-of-conduct.html

The fortune cookie was great, but I believe what he actually consulted before the final opinion was his magic 8 ball.

Randy,

You just wait. Scalia won’t apologize when Cheney shoots him in the face, no sir reeee! Then will see a different type of “objectivity” should Cheney appear before his magnum mysterium!

In the United States, the term “recusal” is used most often with respect to court proceedings. Two sections of Title 28 of the United States Code (the Judicial Code) provide standards for judicial disqualification or recusal. Section 455, captioned “Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge,” provides that a federal judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The same section also provides that a judge is disqualified “where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding”; when the judge has previously served as a lawyer or witness concerning the same case or has expressed an opinion concerning its outcome; or when the judge or a member of his or her immediate family has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding.

28 U.S.C. sec. 144, captioned “Bias or prejudice of judge,” provides that under circumstances, when a party to a case in a United States District Court files a “timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of an adverse party,” the case shall be transferred to another judge.
************************
I think under any standard the judge should have stepped aside as he is clearly in favor of one side, biased. The single largest campaign donation.

The first one is, I do not think that he was impartial. I am pleased that the US Sct did the right thing. In my opinion of course.

“We don’t pay much attention to the violation count.”
Don Blankenship, CEO, Massey Energy, Forbes Magazine 9/26/03

*************

So what shall we call them now? Four blind mice!

Three blind mice. Three blind mice.
See how they run. See how they run.
They all ran after the farmer’s wife,
Who cut off their tails with a carving knife,
Did you ever see such a sight in your life,
As three blind mice?

I think the question is, when is it improper to solicit and accept campaign donations from someone that has a vested interest in the outcome. I think that this case is easy enough for moral upright judges to recuse themselves from the appearance of impropriety.

_________________________________________________________
Recusal in the United States

In the United States, the term “recusal” is used most often with respect to court proceedings. Two sections of Title 28 of the United States Code (the Judicial Code) provide standards for judicial disqualification or recusal. Section 455, captioned “Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge,” provides that a federal judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The same section also provides that a judge is disqualified “where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding”; when the judge has previously served as a lawyer or witness concerning the same case or has expressed an opinion concerning its outcome; or when the judge or a member of his or her immediate family has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding.
________________________________________________________

In the definition above, it could be stated that the judge had a vested interest in the outcome. The man bought and paid for his election, hoping that the outcome would be in his favor.

Far worse than being craven ideologues, the fact that these justices are so sure of their perfection that they feel no need to recognize potential or actual conflict of interest makes me despair. Are they really the best jurists in America? Heaven help us if that is so.

When is the amount of one’s donation too much? The Court failed to answer this question. They failed to clarify the law.

In the instant case, the influence was clear. It’s what the majority failed to say that gives merit to the dissent. If Capperton had only donated $2 million; should the judge have recused himself? -What about $1 million? At what point does the financial contribution become too much?

What if the donation came from Capperton’s attorney?

I think the majority opinion was careful to respect state sovereignty. I can only hope the states recognize such, and take the initiative to create more narrowly defined guidelines, in order to prevent even the appearance of partiality.

Another sad thing is that if you were only told this was a 5-4 decision you would easily identify the 4 dissenting judges. Isn’t that a problem? That’s what made Wyeth such a surprise…Thomas joined the majority!

Mike A.,

You were wise to have illuminated this vexing problem.

Justice Scalia’s dissent was equally predictable. Some wrongs are without a remedy. Great revelation, Justice Scalia.

The dissent objects to the fact that the majority decision raises more questions than it answers. That is true, but it is hardly the first time in Supreme Court history that a principle of law has not been completely fleshed out in an opinion. The majority was dealing with the facts before it and the opinion was as narrowly drawn as it could be under the circumstances.

Finally, I suggest that there is a bit of unspoken arrogance in the minority’s position that the refusal of a judge to recuse himself can never give rise to an equal protection claim. Justices Scalia and Roberts should understand that the rest of us are mere mortals and occasionally fail to exhibit the level of unbiased, dispassionate and objective analysis so characteristic of their judicial deliberations.

Surprise! Most likely, this was judicial dissension towards self-preservation by these 4 judicially biased justices.