You might think it a no brainer to require elected judges to recuse themselves in cases regarding people or firms who may have contributed to their election campaigns, but then you wouldn’t be part of the conservative block on the U.S. Supreme Court — a block that has yet to go against the corporate powers.
Author: hankkalet
Hank Kalet is a poet and freelance journalist. He is the economic needs reporter for NJ Spotlight, teaches journalism at Rutgers University and writing at Middlesex County College and Brookdale Community College. He writes a semi-monthly column for the Progressive Populist. He is a lifelong fan of the New York Mets and New York Knicks, drinks too much coffee and attends as many Bruce Springsteen concerts as his meager finances will allow. He lives in South Brunswick with his wife Annie.
View all posts by hankkalet
Hank Kalet 
From the NYT article, \”Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote a dissent in which he asserted that, contrary to the majority’s insistence, the outcome in Caperton v. Massey 'will inevitably lead to an increase in allegations that judges are biased, however groundless those charges may be.'\”How is the Chief Justice NOT legislating from the bench? Other cases will be brought alleging bias, so we shouldn't let THESE facts affect THIS decision.