where the Constitution requires recusal. Massey and its
amici predict that various adverse consequences will
follow from recognizing a constitutional violation here— ranging from a flood of recusal motions to unnecessary
interference with judicial elections. We disagree. The
facts now before us are extreme by any measure. The
parties point to no other instance involving judicial cam
paign contributions that presents a potential for bias
comparable to the circumstances in this case.
Query: When do we see our first "Caperton motion" to disqualify a Judge in Dade because the attorney for one of the parties works in a law firm that raised a $100,000.00 for the Judge?
And once that happens, and it will, who will our poor dear robed readers turn to for campaign contributions?
While the Caperton case is extreme, even for Dade, the ruling is best viewed as the beginning of a new area of litigation, not the end.
See you in court, saying "show me the money!"