Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito: What's the problem with buying judges through elections?

Today, a majority of the Supreme Court ruled that, yes, judges should recuse themselves from cases involving their major political funders. The decision came in a West Virginia case where one of the justices was elected with the help of a $3 million contribution from one of the defendants. The justice heard the case anyway.

But, the conservatives don't have a problem with the practice of buying judges. In their view, it seems unfair to undermine the influence of major donors:

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for himself and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., said that “the standard the majority articulates — ‘probability of bias’ — fails to provide clear, workable guidance for future cases.”

He followed this observation with a list of 40 numbered questions that “courts will now have to determine.” Among them: How much money is too much money? Must the judge cast the deciding vote? Do contributions from trade associations or interest groups count?

“Today’s opinion,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “requires state and federal judges simultaneously to act as political scientists (why did candidate X win the election?), economists (was the financial support disproportionate?) and psychologists (is there likely to be a debt of gratitude?).”

You'd like to think the patina of judicial impartiality would matter.

And, then, there's Scalia:

Justice Scalia, in a separate dissent, said Monday’s decision illustrated a larger jurisprudential problem.

“The court today continues its quixotic quest to right all wrongs and repair all imperfections through the Constitution,” Justice Scalia wrote.

“Should judges sometimes recuse themselves even when the clear commands of our prior due process law do not require it?” he asked. “Undoubtedly. The relevant question, however, is whether we do more good than harm by seeking to correct this imperfection through expansion of our constitutional mandate in a manner ungoverned by any discernible rule. The answer is obvious.”

Yeah, not so obvious to Scalia. He's such an authority on ethics that he went hunting with Cheney even while the court was considering a case involving Cheney:

Vice President Dick Cheney and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spent part of last week duck hunting together at a private camp in southern Louisiana just three weeks after the court agreed to take up the vice president's appeal in lawsuits over his handling of the administration's energy task force.

While Scalia and Cheney are avid hunters and longtime friends, several experts in legal ethics questioned the timing of their trip and said it raised doubts about Scalia's ability to judge the case impartially.

But Scalia rejected that concern Friday, saying, "I do not think my impartiality could reasonably be questioned."

Right.