Commentary

The amazingly oblivious John Roberts: SCOTUS chief says buying judges is bad, but buying politicians is okay

As Sharon McCloskey reported in this space yesterday, the the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a modest victory for democracy this week when it said that states can ban direct campaign solicitations by judges. Would that North Carolina would join the list of states to do so.

What was perhaps the most amazing thing about the Court’s ruling, however, was Chief Justice John Roberts’ rationale. Ian Millhiser of Think Progress explains:

“Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion for the Court in Williams-Yulee is certainly better for campaign finance regulation than a decision striking down this limit on judicial candidates — had the case gone the other way, judges could have been given the right to solicit money from the very lawyers who practice before them. Yet Roberts also describes judges as if they are special snowflakes who must behave in a neutral and unbiased way that would simply be inappropriate for legislators, governors and presidents:

‘States may regulate judicial elections differently than they regulate political elections, because the role of judges differs from the role of politicians. Politicians are expected to be appropriately responsive to the preferences of their supporters. Indeed, such ‘responsiveness is key to the very concept of self-governance through elected officials.’ The same is not true of judges. In deciding cases, a judge is not to follow the preferences of his supporters, or provide any special consideration to his campaign donors. A judge instead must ‘observe the utmost fairness,’ striving to be “perfectly and completely independent, with nothing to influence or controul [sic] him but God and his conscience.” As in White, therefore, our precedents applying the First Amendment to political elections have little bearing on the issues here.’

Most Americans would undoubtedly agree that judges should not ‘follow the preferences’ of their political supporters, as they would agree that judges should not ‘provide any special consideration to his campaign donors.’ But the implication of the passage quoted above is that members of Congress, state lawmakers, governors and presidents should provide such consideration to their supporters and to their donors. The President of the United States is the president of the entire United States. A member of Congress represents their entire constituency. Yet Roberts appears to believe that they should ‘follow the preferences’ of their supporters and give ‘special consideration’ to the disproportionately wealthy individuals who fund their election.”

Sadly, as Millhiser concludes, the view that it’s okay for donors to buy politicians is at the heart of the Court’s unabashed ruling in the infamous Citizens United decision. What’s bizarre about this week’s ruling is the Court majority’s apparent obliviousness to their own hypocrisy when it comes to donors buying judges.

One Comment


  1. LayintheSmakDown

    April 30, 2015 at 5:59 pm

    I think you guys have to be oblivious to not understand the difference.

    If politicians were not able to take donations, then they would only be able to run for office if they were hugely wealthy. This would make the field an even more elitist bunch than already exists up there. Also, as a donation you are contributing to a view you would want expressed in the legislation. I would like to know what all you guys think is the right conclusion, currently as we have it where you can support your candidate/view, or having only the rich ruling us without anyone to answer to (and remember the top billionaires support Republicans).

Check Also

NC GOP raffling off assault weapons to boost judicial candidates

There’s no explanation as to why one needs ...

Join Our Team

NC Policy Watch is hiring two new journalists to join our award-winning team. Click here for more information.  

Top Stories from NCPW

  • News
  • Commentary

As part of our ongoing effort to inform North Carolinians about the state judiciary, Policy Watch is [...]

Even with an increase in absentee voting, election directors expect a large in-person turnout. Since [...]

Irwin Detention Facility has history of physical and verbal abuse Top U.S. House Democrats are inves [...]

As part of our ongoing effort to inform North Carolinians about the state judiciary, Policy Watch is [...]

Talk from Republican senators about "rules" and "precedent" is nothing but a smo [...]

Supreme Court hypocrisy, effort to infiltrate progressive NC groups ought to be the last straws It s [...]

For many parents and caregivers, seeing their child struggle through virtual learning can be both fr [...]

Click here for the original story. The post The far-right go fishin’ appeared first on NC Policy Wat [...]