When we are talking about the entire civil and criminal justice system, the only thing that gives it any authority at all is the public perception that there is integrity in the process. If that public trust is lost, all is lost. Therefore, the appearance of impropriety is just as big of a problem as impropriety itself. It doesn't matter if the verdict was improperly influenced -- the fact that it looks like it was improperly influenced robs it of its weight and authority.

The only thing that the courts can give litigants, truly, is a sense of fair hearing. In any litigation, there is a winner and there is a loser. The losing party must have some faith, at a minimum, that the process was fair. If the losing party believes, with some justification in this case, that the fix was in, then the judicial process loses its ability to resolve disputes.

The judge should have recused himself from the decision. This isn't even a tough call.

I agree. Just reading the facts scream, 'dirty deeds.'

You are correct you would think this is a no brainer but if you think about this we see the same kind of "cheating of the System" by the rich or famus all of the time. Money Talks and the average pay the price of there mistakes. I can give a good example I worked for a Trucking company that the Owners son got 2 DUI's in a two year period, but because they payed the Lawers a huge amount of money, he was able to drive a Semi within a year. Yet when I filled out my aplication it clearly Stated that they by Federal Motor Carrier Laws you cannot operate a Commercial Vehicle with this on your record for the past 3 yrs. Money Talks the rest of us Pay.

By refusing to recuse himself, (if the stated facts are true) the Judge shows he is not fit to sit on the bench and should be impeached immediately.

The problem is the money that guy spent on the election *didn't* go to the Judge's campaign. He spent it himself without the judge's input or direction. Ergo the judge *never* had a choice to accept or decline the money.

Sure the party spent the $$ themselves. So what? If the judge from then forwards recused himself from all rulings that directly included those who spent big $$ promoting his candidacy, this would constituted (or at least should) a very small fraction of cases so it should be no problem. And those recusals would be justified by the greater good they serve - that of establishing judicial impartiality in the minds of the public.

The only three conclusions one can reach WRT the failure to recuse himself is

1. He is clueless and cares even less about how the public perceives the judicial process
2. Like many conservatives, he actually wants to undermine the judicial process since it limits the reach of demagougic ideologies
3. He actually has a payback to follow through on (a nod's as good as a wink)

None of which are helpful to our judicial or societal process.

If the judge from then forwards recused himself from all rulings that directly included those who spent big $$ promoting his candidacy...

Then Bozo the Billionaire would have funded the Judges who didn't like him.

This guy is in the courts all the time (for that matter the Judge he supported has ruled against him a number of times). If Bozo could take out a judge or two like that he'd jump at the chance.

Well that's an interesting point, but if a judge has a track record of voting against this guy, then that judge has a case to make as on why not to recuse.

And it gets very expensive to make those sorts of campaign contributions to knock out every judge that has ruled against you.

Well that's an interesting point, but if a judge has a track record of voting against this guy, then that judge has a case to make as on why not to recuse.

The *current* guy you're roasting has a track record of voting against the guy more often than not.

And it gets very expensive to make those sorts of campaign contributions to knock out every judge that has ruled against you.

"Very expensive"? As opposed to what? If you tell Bozo what the rules are, he'll tell you what his actions are. If campaign contributions (that can't be refused since they're not to the judge) are enough to bounce a judge, then he's already shown he'll do it.

Better still, that would probably be *cheaper* than funding someone to the point of actually winning the election. All he'd have to do is fund someone who is already going to win.

I think Olson missed an opportunity. After Justice Scalia's response, he should have demanded an answer about why a petitioner shouldn't expect an impartial or "fair" hearing. For that matter, I think others of the sitting judges should have jumped on that as well, but I'm afraid that they sit in some trepidation of Justice Scalia and his "tone." And that's sad. If this exchange is accurately reported, it represents an unfortunate day in SC history.