The three biggest Supreme Court decison disasters in the last 11 years.

[her209]

1) Judges do not have recuse themselves from cases when they have received either campaign contributions or actual goods and services.
Imagine that you could have a dispute with someone and you go to court and the judge got a 500,000 dollar campaign contribution from your adversay. Plus the judge flies on your adversaries plane for an all expense paid vacation. Would you trust that judge?

What if they have a vested financial interest in either the plaintiff or defendant?

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

He also said 11 years. Corporate personhood happened over hundred years ago. techs fail, as usual.

For sure but wasn't it kind of reaffirmed recently with the campaign finance decision? I just assumed that is what he meant.



As for the Kelo case. Is it out of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to define "public use"? It seems like they could and should have defined that.

 

[Thump553]

It would help a lot more if you gave the actual name of a case instead of relying on a summary (probably slanted, as shown by the eminent domain case description) description of the case.

BTW techs I think you got #1 wrong. If you were referring to Capteron v. A.T. Massey Coal Company the US Supreme Court did reverse the state court because the appearnce of judicial impropriety was so strong it violated Due Process grounds. (BTW it was the same Massey Coal who by all appearances essential bought a state supreme court justice in that case had the mine explosion that killed 25 this April).

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

It would help a lot more if you gave the actual name of a case instead of relying on a summary (probably slanted, as shown by the eminent domain case description) description of the case.

BTW techs I think you got #1 wrong. If you were referring to Capteron v. A.T. Massey Coal Company the US Supreme Court did reverse the state court because the appearnce of judicial impropriety was so strong it violated Due Process grounds. (BTW it was the same Massey Coal who by all appearances essential bought a state supreme court justice in that case had the mine explosion that killed 25 this April).

I thought he was refering to the case where Scalia refused to recuse himself. It had to do with Cheney but I don't remember the details or the name of the case so I can't really have an opinion on it.

 

[BoberFett]

For sure but wasn't it kind of reaffirmed recently with the campaign finance decision? I just assumed that is what he meant.

As for the Kelo case. Is it out of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to define "public use"? It seems like they could and should have defined that.

It's very rare for the SC to reverse a previous SC decision. Generally, they try not to make massive sweeping decisions that shake the foundation of the country.