Washington Courts

The Supreme Court heard the Referendum 71 signature and address disclosure case yesterday.  The eminences on the Supreme Court were not very cordial to the attorney for the people who seek signature privacy. 

The disclosure was not sought for the purpose of verifying the legitimacy of the signatories.  It was sought for the purpose of outing people so that political pressure could be brought to bear on them, so that they could be the targets of what — general knowledge, or was it something else, something that might have something to do with ridicule and recrimination, bad stuff.  Bad stuff not good stuff, not neutral stuff.

The people placed on the dais of the Law Palace were not very kind to Mr. Bopp.  That was not surprising, one goes before the court with the sense that one is exposing oneself to fellow law students and professors who like a good argument.  Mr. Bopp got a bit of meanness, in addition to argument.  But that is all right too.  Especially when one understands the childishness of the work of the eminences.

When one reads the transcript of the oral argument one gets the impression that the Justices were a bit petulant.  That’s a good word for it.

The upshot of all this is that the signatures and addresses of the people who sign initiative and referendum and recall petitions in those states which allow for such participation are going to find that their petitioning of the government is no longer going to have any sort of zone of privacy.  You are now fair game you citizens of the revolution, you citizens who question your government! 

I was wondering whether these highly placed people who have been anointed with extraordinary power (Justices of the United States Supreme Court)  are thinking to themselves something like — “that will show those upstarts who would like to start a revolution against the Government Party!”

Here is the opinion.

An appellate judge cacusts a deciding vote in a case overturning a $50 million jury verdict against a coal company.  While getting elected to the bench of the court, the CEO of the coal company spends over $3 million getting the judge elected.  The question:  Whether the judge should have recused himself?  By the way, the judge was aware of the efforts of the CEO.

The USSC has the issue in the case — Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.  Just when should a judge recuse himself.  Certainly it is in this case.  We are not talking about a small amount of money.  The Supreme Court accepted cert. meaning it wants to decide the issue.  Is the recusal a due process issue?  Maybe not.  But, i sure would seem to be a violation of judicial ethics issue.  How can a judge say he is upholding the character and integrity of the court when any thoughtful person would conclude there is at least the appearence of unfairness at work.

Justice Scalia probably would disagree.  He thinks judges walk on water and certainly would not be affected by a multi-million dollar bit of support.  Not only does Justice Scalia lack humility and understanding of human frailty, he lacks good sense.

The many briefs in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. can be found here and the transcript of the oral argument can be found here.