So you would almost have thought it didn't happen, but there was a major US Supreme Court decision about the problems that arise when the judiciary is too indebted to political contributors - or, perhaps more importantly locally, "other electoral assistance". For folks who have not followed the case, basically a large West Virginia coal company attempted to force a competitor out of business by buying all the land around its competitor and blocking road access to their holdings. Courts ruled the action illegal and awarded a $50 million judgement to smaller competitor. Massey then spent $3 million dollars to help elect West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Justice Brent Benjamin. Benjamin later voted unsurprisingly to reverse the $50 million judgment against Massey. His election to the bench turned out to an investment with a $47 million direct profit to Massey Coal.

Breaking news from the AP wire:

Pennsylvania's highest court says a ban on political campaign contributions by casino owners and executives is unconstitutional. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the ban violates the state constitution's guarantee of free speech. . . . The ban was touted as a major bulwark against the political influence that the lucrative gambling industry can exert over policymakers.

The Supreme Court noted in its opinion that the ban on political contributions was overly broad. In writing for the majority, Chief Justice Ron Castille suggested other alternatives:

"While the ban on political contributions does further the compelling state interest in avoiding the appearance of corruption in the oversight of the gaming industry, Section 1513 is not narrowly tailored," Castille wrote. "A statute that limited the size of contributions, rather than absolutely prohibiting any contributions, would be more narrowly drawn to accomplish the stated goal."

That’s what they did in Maryland, so how’d that turn out?

Has Pennsylvania's highest court been compromised by greed and political corruption? A year ago, when I first got involved with working to keep casinos out of Philadelphia neighborhoods, I might have been shocked by the very idea. Now the question seems appropriate.

On Monday, the League of Women Voters (“LWV”) filed a federal law suit that makes a stunning allegation: it alleges that former Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief Justice Ralph Cappy secretly met with legislative leaders and struck a deal to uphold the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's slots casino bill in return for a pay hike in the form of . . . wait for it . . . the now infamous pay raise of 2006. Furthermore, the complaint asserts that these types of alleged shenanigans date back a decade to the mid-nineties. Check out the LWV case by clicking here.

Meanwhile, keep in mind that both the gaming act and the pay raise were passed by the General Assembly through a process called "gut-and-replace" whereby a law is stripped of its original language and intent, and rushed to a vote without the mandated three days of public review in both the House and the Senate. This is a clear violation of Article 3 of the Constitution and last year a lower court struck down a perfectly nice 2002 hate-crimes bill, finding the "gut-and-replace" tactic to be unconstitutional.

Though some observers have questioned whether the LWV's case will succeed, few familiar with the history of the court's decisions regarding casinos are shocked or surprised by the accusations that the Court might have lost its independence.

Is it true? If not, why would a respected nonpartisan group such as the League of Women Voters put its reputation on the line? And their case isn't the only place where you can hear these questions raised about justices and injustice.

Take this month's Philadelphia Magazine story about the feud between former friends and political allies Senator Vince Fumo and SugarHouse investor Richard Sprague as exhibit B. In his article, Robert Huber explains that:

These days, Dick Sprague helps watch over the State Supreme Court from his perch on its disciplinary committee, which is chaired by Bill Lamb, an ex-justice who is one of Sprague's closest friends. So close that Fumo sometimes referred to them in phone conversation as the "tennis player" – Sprague–and his partner–Lamb.

Check out the entire article here.

Well guess what? You can cue up the spooky music because Bill Lamb is also an investor in SugarHouse. Huber goes on to slyly note that the gambling bill written by Fumo in 2004 has "a provision that legal challenges get fast-tracked past the lower courts and go right to the Supremes. At press-time, in the 11 separate matters involving SugarHouse that have been decided by the court, the casino has gotten favorable rulings 11 times."

Get ready for ruling number 12.

At the end of his last term, Mayor John Street granted SugarHouse Casino a license to build on 11 acres of riparian land along the Delaware River despite the fact that under current law only the state legislature, not the city, has the legal authority to lease these riparian lands. (For a more detailed account of the case, check out this Plan Philly article.) Mayor Michael Nutter, Philadelphia City Council, and members of Philadelphia's legislative delegation, including Representatives Mike O'Brien and Bill Keller and Senator Fumo now are asserting in court that Street overstepped his legal authority. If SugarHouse wins its 12th legal case, it will be in blatant defiance of existing law, our city officials, state officials and basic common sense.

If the allegations in the League of Women Voters' case are true, then does that put all the casino cases under a cloud of suspicion? Is the Delaware riverfront being held hostage to a political conspiracy?

So what to do? To save democracy and declare our independence just like our fore-fathers did in 1773, Casino-Free Philadelphia is throwing a Tea Party.

The first step is to shine a light. The SugarHouse case could be decided as soon as today, so we're sending the Supremes a message to let them know we are watching. We expect the Court to operate within the very same laws that they are sworn to uphold.

Here is how our Tea Party will work: If you donate to Casino-Free Philadelphia, we will put your name and personalized message on a card, enclose an actual tea bag, and mail it to the Supreme Court. The minimum donation is $1 to cover the costs of postage, materials and tea! Click here to take part. Additional funds donated will be used by Casino-Free Philadelphia to help fund all their efforts to keep casinos out of Philadelphia's neighborhoods.

Click here to participate.

We will also deliver the names and messages of those who participate to City Council, our legislators, and Mayor Nutter to thank them for standing shoulder to shoulder with the people of Philadelphia and to let them know that we will continue to resist.

If the Supreme Court is dealing away our democracy and refusing to uphold the law, then maybe our city has no choice but to revolt, peaceably of course.

Because, according to today’s story story, it seems as though Seamus McCaffery forgot:

Last week, he made a point of his police background during an oral argument in a death-penalty case - and his remarks have become a hot topic among judges and lawyers who handle criminal cases, with some expecting defense attorneys to challenge McCaffery's ability to be fair to death-row inmates.

The case focused on the novel question of whether defendant Thavirak Sam, who was sentenced to death in 1991, can be forcibly medicated so his appeal can proceed.

The question is important because Sam, who suffers from mental illness, can't be executed because he has been ruled mentally incompetent. If he is forcibly medicated with antipsychotic drugs, Sam might become competent, and that could set the stage for his execution.

As defense lawyer Jules Epstein made his case that it would be unconstitutional to forcibly medicate Sam, McCaffery leaned forward and told the packed courtroom that he could restrain himself no longer.

The justice said he felt compelled to point out that Sam's relatives had been waiting years for justice.

Referring to his years on the police force, McCaffery said, "I was the one who picked up the bodies" and notified family members about such deaths. "How about finality for these family members?" he asked.

In addition to interjecting overly personal statements about “picking up bodies” McCaffery said he couldn’t help himself.

Well, he needs to. He’s not on the court to be a knee-jerk reactionary to any murder situation he sees. This is a question of forced medication of a mentally ill man. His job is to listen to the arguments and consider them in light of constitutional rights of all parties.

If he can't help himself, then he needs to recuse himself from this and all other death penalty cases.