A SCOTUS "Common Sense" Ruling

In a closely-contested US Supreme Court case (Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co.) the High Court ruled for the first time that bribing a judge to get a favorable opinion in a case you've brought before him is unconstitutional.

Like I say, that seems to me to be a glaring example of a "duh"-moment common sense ruling.

But what do I know? Four of the august "great minds" on the court disagree, and with that narrow 5-4 decision, it still seems that justice can -- almost -- still be wholly bought and paid for.

Want to take a guess as to who the dissenting four were? Yep, it was the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse themselves: Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alioto, all of whom said it was just fine to pay three million dollars to get a judge elected to office just so you could bring your case before him and have him rule in your favor.

Actually, no surprises there, with those four über-Republican judges, and don't let's forget Antonin "Quack-Quack" Scalia's fishing trip with Darth Cheney right before SCOTUS heard a case that involved the vice-presidency. No conflict of interest there, was there? So it's not surprising that he thinks this bribe is okay.

At least Sotomayer, who is replacing Souter, is on record as being with the majority opinion.

This is why it was SO important to elect a Democrat in 2008 and to reelect Obama in 2012.

We just can't afford to have any more wingnut bribe-taking rights-abusing freedom-hating capitalist-pig-Republican-protecting neo-judicial-activist judges on the Supreme Court.