Supreme Court Rules that Judges Cannot Rule on Cases Involving Financial Contributors. What Year is This?

No matter how much I despise the field of psychology, psychology tells us that when a person makes a gift to someone else--be it a gift of a kind words, or a tangible gift--the recipient is more likely to view the gifter in a favorable light. It is actually written in several books and manuals as a "trick" to winning someone over.

Political contributions are public records. And judges must report all monies that they receive. Law firms make financial contributions to judges on the record, and off the record. The more clandestine transactions take place when attorneys fund the judge's vacations and even their homes. Universities also make gifts to judges when they invite them to speak on, housing, etc.

So, how are the judges able to rule accordingly? Duh, because judge possess superhuman powers, called impartiality.

In this NY Times article:
Elected judges routinely accept contributions from lawyers and litigants who appear before them, and they seldom disqualify themselves for cases involving donors.
Let me add, that judges seldom recuse themselves from ANY case, it doesn't have to be this specific (read The Paradox of Recusal).

But what are the justices really worried about:
But the four dissenting justices predicted that the decision would generate a flood of groundless recusal motions and undermine confidence in the judiciary.
Who, in 2009, still has confidence in our judiciary? My guess is only the people who have never been caught up in the legal system.

Anyway, this ruling only concerns
cases involving people who spent exceptionally large sums to put them on the bench.

What about the rest of us? How long will we have to wait for justice?