U S Supreme Court decision In Massey Is A Win For Fairness In The Courts

A couple of months ago I blogged on the importance of the upcoming Massey decision and if justice could be purchased. The decision was a clear indicator that it could not be. As was explained in the Wall Street Journal, "The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision this week calling for judges to stay out of cases involving big political donors confronts the growing role of money in the U.S. judicial system." The Journal adds, "Political donations to judicial candidates at the highest state courts have soared in recent years, creating concerns that money is eroding public confidence in the system." Opponents of that system say "states should enact such reforms as requiring taxpayers to underwrite judicial races" or "scrap contested elections in favor of appointing judges to the bench, which is the practice of some states."

Hopefully, the ruling with also give rise to higher standers in policing these contributions. As Bert Brandenburg, director of the National Organization For Justice at Stake, pointed out, "The Supreme Court opinion left the door open for all states to develop more stringent refusal standards." He added, "Now [it is] up to each state to fill in the finer points."

The Washington Post went further to conclude that because of the issues raised in the case "States should consider abandoning judicial elections for a merit selection system that better insulates judges from the corrosive influences of money and politics." I agree that retention elections should at least be looked at. Money should not buy justice. Thankfully the highest court agreed.