Clearly not what I'd call "fair" coverage of the Caperton v. A.T. Massey. But I think this is an example of a case where it would be disingenuous for a Slate reporter to lay out both sides' arguments in a neutral, uncritical tone. This was an informative piece, reported with an appropriately sharp tongue.

Well written and recommended reading for anyone who think theres no bias in the Supreme Court. While everybody know local and state courts make deals all the time, for their friends, for money and for more power. Well, when it gets to the Supreme Court, it doesn't get much higher. So, what could a justice possibly want? How about immortality. For every small time judge, they have to follow the laws put in place my the Supreme Court. From here to eternity, the laws they put in place will be argued and debated. The ultimate power.

A little spicey and edgy, Lithwick looks at the supreme court trying to judge a judge who was bought and paid for by big business interests, and delivered.

This piece is well-written and provides good insight for understanding why our judicial system (along with the government, corporations and others...) has become so corrupt. But the problem is much more widespread than the author appears to acknowledge.

A poorly written article—especially the last half—containing good information, but you have to work for it. This story is not revelation, but rather confirmation about what we’ve always suspected about the Bushie Justice Dept.