From what I knew about the situation, I was inclined to think that the correct conclusion in the WV refuse-to-recuse case (here) was obvious . . . until I read the facts and until I thought about the proper role of the Supreme Court in establishing precedent on a given issue. Proponents of Tennessee's system of picking judges by unaccountable commissions have been eager to point to WV as Exhibit A of "cash in the courts" or as the norm in states where supreme court justices are elected; that's demagoguery.
Read the Supreme Court's Caperton v. Massey slip opinion for yourself (here), especially Chief Justice Roberts' dissent, and see if you don't agree that "bad facts make bad law."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment