SCOTUS turns down case that involves when should a judge recuse himself?

[liveoaktx]

(or herself?)
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=62100

Interesting. The first thing that pops into my mind is Scalia duckhunting with Cheney.
**********

The United States Supreme Court declined Monday to review the case of Avery v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. The case involved an Illinois Supreme Court justice who declined to recuse himself from a case involving one of his biggest campaign contributors. In an amicus brief, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, and many cosigners, including the N.C. Center for Voter Education, had asked the court to hear the case and help states understand when recusal is required under the Constitution.

"The reason people should care about this ruling is that it has an impact on how we perceive the fairness and impartiality of our courts," said Chris Heagarty, executive director of the N.C. Center for Voter Education. "Our research study from last year shows that while most voters have a fairly positive opinion about our judges, 86 percent of voters are concerned that large campaign contributions to judges can too often lead to conflicts of interest. Ninety-four percent, an overwhelming number, think that campaign contributions made to elected officials have an influence over their decisions. Fifty-seven percent think these contributions have a great deal of influence."

Avery is the fallout from the most expensive state judicial campaign in United States history, the 2004 race for Illinois Supreme Court justice. Illinois Appellate Judge Gordon Maag and then-circuit Judge Lloyd Karmeier raised a total of approximately $9.3 million in political contributions -- nearly double the previous national record for a state judicial election.

Karmeier, who received over $350,000 in direct contributions from State Farm's employees, lawyers and others involved with the company and/or the case, and over $1 million more from groups of which State Farm was a member or to which it contributed, won both the fundraising battle and the election. Once on the court, Justice Karmeier declined to recuse himself from Avery, which had been pending before the Illinois Supreme Court during the campaign. Karmeier then cast the deciding vote on a contract claim, overturning a $456 million verdict against State Farm.

[MadMaddie]

1. And so it begins....

Alito lied and said he would recuse himself and yet he didn't...

And now apparantly it's okay for judges to do this!!

[Benhurst]

2. ...

:rofl: Those Supremes! Wouldn't want to set any bad precedents for themselves, would they? Pathetic.

[havocmom]

3. Good call: Scalia and Dick do ducks then Scalia does Dick's case

Yep, they don't wanna draw attention to their own shit so they give others a pass too. Honor among thieves.

[papau]

4. Someone does not like State Farm - WOW - what spin - NO $ from State

Farm went to the Judges campaign! - per Bloomberg News, March 7, 2006

All the USSC did was to refused to revive the "use of generic parts in car repairs is fraud because the generic parts were of lower quality than original equipment" LAW SUIT, that was filed as a class action which sought to represent 4.75 million policyholders - and of which the Illinois Sup CT had said the suit raised too many individual issues to proceed as a single, nationwide class action.

The court, without comment (but presumably because the policyholders hadn't shown any appearance of impropriety, and since State Farm had not made any contributions to Judge Karmeier either directly or through some other organization), declined to hear arguments that an Illinois Supreme Court justice should not have taken part in the 4 to 2 ruling that struck down the award,

[sandnsea]

5. And Alito and his lack of recusals

Interesting. Frightening. Another day of Bushmania.

[radio4progressives]

6. and another reminder of what the Dems could have stood together against

but didn't.

fucking assholes.

[mom cat]

7. And there was the Alito recusal refusal issue too.