The Supreme Court's landmark Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. ruling has prompted sweeping predictions on both sides of the debate over judges and campaign money.

Some see the high court's June 8 ruling as a signal that states should reconsider the system of installing judges through election campaigns, which have become increasingly costly and hard-fought. Thirty-nine states elect at least some judges.

"I hope this decision will spur states to focus on whether our 19th-century method of selecting judges works well in the 21st century," said Thomas Phillips, the former chief justice of Texas and a partner at Baker Botts, in a recent interview with Legal Times. Phillips co-authored a brief in the Caperton v. Massey case on behalf of the Conference of Chief Justices.

On the flip side, critics of the 5-4 ruling -- including Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the dissenting opinion -- predict that it will unleash a wave of litigation and actually undermine the credibility of the courts. Roberts' dissent warns that the ruling creates an ambiguous standard that states will find difficult to enforce.

In fact, both scenarios miss the mark. The ruling's more likely outcome is that state supreme courts will establish and enforce clearer recusal rules for judges who may face conflicts of interest, guidelines that are long overdue.

To read more of Eliza Newlin Carney's column "Rules of The Game" click here.