This is surreal. The election of judges was bound to lead to this.
The Supreme Court hears arguments Tuesday in the case of a West Virginia state supreme court justice who participated in a lawsuit involving a major campaign contributor. The party, which eventually lost, is appealing, on the ground that the justice should have recused himself. The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether judges must recuse themselves when they might be seen to have a bias, even when they don't have a personal stake in the outcome of the case.
High court to decide when judges should step aside
from The Associated Press
The Supreme Court is being asked to set down rules for when elected judges should step aside from cases that involve their campaign supporters.
The justices are set to hear arguments Tuesday in a case from West Virginia in which a coal company executive spent more than $3 million to help elect a state Supreme Court justice. Later, Justice Brent Benjamin was part of a 3-2 majority that overturned a verdict, which now totals $82.7 million with interest, against the company, Massey Energy Co.
The losing party, Harman Mining Corp., and its president, Hugh Caperton, asked the U.S. high court to rule that Benjamin's refusal to step aside from the case violated their constitutional right to due process.
They argue that several factors combine to create an "overwhelming probability" that Benjamin would not be impartial, including the size of the campaign support and the fact that it represented more than half the money spent on his behalf. The money mostly went to an independent group that ran television ads against Benjamin's opponent.
In addition, Benjamin made the decision to remain on the case by himself, not subject to review by his fellow justices. Other states, but not the U.S. Supreme Court, allow the whole court to review recusal decisions.
Massey rejects the assertions that Benjamin owed a debt of gratitude to chief executive Don Blankenship or that Benjamin displayed any bias in his ruling. Benjamin has ruled against Massey at least four times, including in a unanimous refusal to hear the company's appeal of a $260 million judgment won in another contract dispute.
Former judges and interest groups on both sides of the debate over campaign contributions have weighed in on the dispute.
The case is Caperton v. Massey, 08-22.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101368723Nina Totenberg gives her usual fantastic summary of the case. Go to the link above and click "Listen Now"
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
