Given the context of our current debate over Sonia Sotomayor and how perspective might affect a judge's jurisprudence, the 5-4 split verdict on the Supreme Court case, Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal, et al., involved a coal magnate named Don Blankenship who attempted to place a coal-friendly judge onto the West Virginia Supreme Court, by financing his campaign, which contained a number of scurrilous charges aimed at his opponent. The decision by the court is that it's unconstitutional for a judge to sit on a case involving the financial interests of a major donor to that judge's campaign.
This would seem fairly uncontroversial. Yet, the four down-the-line conservative justices, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts, dissented. Roberts' dissent is revealing, particularly this part highlighted by Ian Milhiser at Think Progress:
The Court's new “rule” provides no guidance to judges and litigants about when recusal will be constitutionally required. This will inevitably lead to an increase in allegations that judges are biased, however groundless those charges may be. The end result will do far more to erode public confidence in judicial impartiality than an isolated failure to recuse in a particular case.
It seems pretty straightforward to me that judges should recuse themselves when they might have to rule on a case involving a donor's financial interests. Roberts is less interested in reducing potential corruption than the effect that might have on the perception of judges.
It couldn't be that Roberts' perspective on the matter is in any way colored by his being, you know, a millionaire judge who might someday face such accusations.
-- A. Serwer
