SC rules that elected Judges can't rule on major backers

[Berkut]

I've always though (and some law talker can certainly correct me if I am wrong) that judges would err on the side of making sure that not only was there no bias, there was no appearance of bias either.

Is that not the case?

I cannot see, in this case, how one can argue that there was not at least the appearance of interest, if not bias.

[crazy canuck]

I've always though (and some law talker can certainly correct me if I am wrong) that judges would err on the side of making sure that not only was there no bias, there was no appearance of bias either.

Is that not the case?

I cannot see, in this case, how one can argue that there was not at least the appearance of interest, if not bias.

You are correct.  These cases are always decided on the basis of appearance of bias.  The term used is the reasonable apprehension of bias (at least in Canada).  I assume the issue before the USSC is whether the facts in the case met a similar standard.   I can see the minority argument that there will always be some potential bias in a system where judges are elected.  The question is whether the apprehension of bias rises to the level where recusal is necessary.  The majority said yes the minority said no.  I see this as a case where reasonable people could disagree.

[Valmy]

liberal judges decide to take the law in their own hands and turn to vigilante justice.

God damn it Hans I thought you were going to say 'leftist' from now on.  You disgrace John Locke.

[Valmy]

Considering the entire Texas justice system is put into office through crooked money I wonder if judges will be able to rule on any cases anymore. 

[ulmont]

I've always though (and some law talker can certainly correct me if I am wrong) that judges would err on the side of making sure that not only was there no bias, there was no appearance of bias either.

Is that not the case?

I cannot see, in this case, how one can argue that there was not at least the appearance of interest, if not bias.

Yes.

The West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct also requires a judge to "disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Canon 3E(1); see also 28 U. S. C. §455(a) ("Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned").

The question is where a judge's failure to adhere to those standards of conduct rises to the level of a federal constitutional violation.  According to the majority:

Under our precedents there are objective standards that require recusal when "the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable."