We all expect judges of our courts to be impartial, and appear to be impartial.
However, there can be instances whereby a judge will decide a case in which partiality appears to be present.
Such was the case involving Massey Energy, one of the nations largest coal companies.
In the trial court a $50 million dollar verdict was rendered against Massey Energy in West Virginia. “Justice [Brent] Benjamin, who is now the state’s chief justice, twice cast the deciding vote to throw out [the] $50 million verdict against Massey Energy.”
Massey Energy’s chief executive, Don Blankenship, spent an extraordinary $3 million to help Justice Benjamin get elected to the state’s top court.
The question is: Did that $3 million dollars spent by Blankenship to help Benjamin get elected help Benjamin decide in favor of Massey Energy?
The case made it’s way to the United States Supreme Court. Yesterday the Supreme Court decided, 5-4, that “Justice Benjamin’s failure to recuse himself from a case involving his major campaign supporter … amounted to a Constitutional violation. [New York Times]
“Not every campaign contribution by a litigant or attorney creates a probability of bias that requires a judge’s recusal, but this is an exceptional case,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion, which was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. [Justice Kennedy was my law school constitutional law professor.]
Justice Kennedy said that no “quid pro quo” connection has been established between Mr. Blankenship’s campaign spending, which far surpassed those of other donors in the judicial elections, and Justice Benjamin’s position in the lawsuit. Nevertheless, the “serious, objective risk of actual bias” required Justice Benjamin to recuse himself, and his failure to do so endangered the plaintiff’s due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, Justice Kennedy said.
Chief Justice John Roberts, dissented, writing he was concerned that the majority’s ruling will lead to an increase in allegations that judges are biased. We believe that risk is exaggerated. More important, this ruling comes at a moment when judicial neutrality and the appearance of neutrality is under a severe threat from big money state judicial campaigns and the special interest money that fuels them, noted the NYT’s in its editorial.
The Times wrote the Supreme Court’s majority opinion “amounts to a crucial statement that judges and justice are not for sale.”
“Indeed, the only truly alarming thing about Monday’s decision was that it was not unanimous. The case drew an unusual array of friend-of-court briefs from across the political spectrum, and such an extreme case about an ethical matter that should transcend ideology should have united all nine justices,” the Times added.
The Times put a clear relevant focus on the decision. “Chief Justice Roberts is fond of likening a judge’s role to that of a baseball umpire. It is hard to imagine that professional baseball or its fans would trust the fairness of an umpire who accepted $3 million from one of the teams.” [Emphasis added]
Related posts:
i agree with the times… he should have recused himself… that is why they have that word ,,,, but often fail to use it .,,, val
Thank you for the comment Val. I agree, also with The Times. The decision, one would think, would be unanimous, rather that 5-4. I applaud Justice Kennedy and the majority for their sound reasoning in the decision.
You could certainly see your expertise in the work you write. The world hopes for more passionate writers such as you who are not afraid to mention how they believe. All the time follow your heart.
Thank you Fire Damage Cleanup for the kind comment.
Featheriver´s last [type] ..Growing wealth of members of Congress