November 9, 2009

We should be proud of our Supreme Court

... for its thoughtful consideration of this difficult issue.* The justices had to consider the First Amendment rights of individuals and organizations to participate in elections and the due process rights of litigants to receive a fair and impartial hearing before a court. These are both fundamental rights and weighing them can be a tough balancing act.
Not really. Without due process, the government could otherwise deprive persons of their property, their liberty, and even their lives.

Without the First Amendment ... what? You couldn't cut a Supreme Court judge a check for ten grand? And call that a balancing act?


* And, presumably, also for the majority's verbatim adoption of the quoted author's trade association's proposed rules of judicial ethics, which was ostensibly intended to improve upon the public's perception of the court as a fair and unbiased dispenser of justice.

1 comment:

Brett said...

Does it seem strange to anyone else that a judge who makes a capital contribution to a party results in recusal (such as having stock ownership in a defendant--remember how the "red flags were a flyin'" with Justice Ziegler's ethics complaint?), but a party making a capital contribution to a judge does not result in recusal?

In both situations, the "right" to make the contribution is unquestioned. In both situations, there is a "financial interest" floating around in the matter. Yet different results follow from who made the contribution. What is the substantive difference?