Actually, it wouldn't matter if it did affect their thinking. Lots of things - including lots of encounters and conversations - shape Justices' thinking. They are not cloistered monks. The question is conflict of interest. The Koch brothers, of course, did not even have a case before the Court (nor did they take anyone on an around the world cruise, for what that's worth). Nor can the standard for a conflict of interest be, as John implies, that a Court decision might alter the legal rules governing legal affairs of people not before them - even their friends and family. That would mean Justices could not rule on economic matters that might help, harm, or simply alter the economic interests or personal interests (such as right to abortion) of friends or family. Giving a speech to a group of people years before a case (in which those people are neither parties nor even amici) reaches the Court (or is even filed in lower courts) simply does not create a conflict of interest.
Rick says:
Does anyone really think that Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas's attendance at a Koch brothers meeting to give a speech on an unrelated subject affected in any way either (1) the Justices' thinking about the merits of the campaign finance issue in Citizens United or (2) how Justices Kennedy, Alito and (Chief Justice) Roberts voted in that case?
>>> Rick Hasen 01/21/11 10:16 AM >>>
Is that the issue? If I have a case before the Supreme Court (or if the case before the Supreme Court clearly affects basic behaviors I am engaging in), and certain justices have made it plain that they support my position, is it then O.K. for me to take them and their families on a round-the-world cruise because it is clear they already support me? Just for safety, I'll promise to discuss only "unrelated subjects" while they are on my cruise.
John Shockley
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law