If that is indeed the same judge working together with the plaintif, then it does still not proof corruption. But taking the case would have been highly unethical. I really hope there will be an investigation into this.
I may be wrong about this, but when I was younger it seemed like corruption was well hidden from public view, now the elites rub our faces in the fact that they can get away with just about anything.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/us/politics/19thomas.html?... http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_01... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/us/politics/15thomas.html http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_02...
That judge is going to sit there for about 20 years. As you see right now with the upcoming supreme court decision on the healthcare issue, the decision is most likely going to be made along the party lines, with most of the decision power hanging on the mercy of a single judge. If you are the president and have the ability to appoint/suggest a judge, you need to find someone that you can rely on to keep his political leaning intact for the next 20 years. Otherwise you are significantly reducing the chances to see your worldview represented in the rulings for the next 20+ years. Sure, the process is questionable, but I can completely understand that politicians see the appointment of judges as a very strategic element, and therefore making it necessary to keep them close. But apparently too close in some cases...
Yes, doing something "highly unethical" IS corruption. If you are a public official and you do one or more "highly unethical" things, you are corrupt.
Corruption is "when an elected representative makes decisions that are influenced by vested interest rather than their own personal or party ideological beliefs" [1]. The key phrase is vested interests - that's what separates vanilla unethical behaviour from corruption.
Now, perhaps he has a mental illness and he has begun doing things for no apparent reason, beyond his conscious control. That might be the case. I'm sorry for missing that narrow exception.
However, in practice, rational people don't just do highly unethical things for no reason. In fact, that really speaks to the very definition of a "rational" person in many ways. No, they do them because they get some sort of satisfaction out of doing them, and that is the definition of a "vested interest".
Highly unethical behavior without some motivating vested interest just doesn't exist. The vested interest needn't be financial of course, but it is still there.