(Hmmm, I wonder which Justices opposed this decision? Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito, Jr.)
Court Ties Campaign Largess to Judicial Bias
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post
The Supreme Court yesterday ruled for the first time that excessive campaign contributions to a judge create an unconstitutional threat to a fair trial, a decision that could have a nationwide impact on whether judges must recuse themselves in cases involving their political benefactors.
In a case that crystallized a growing national debate over how multimillion-dollar judicial campaigns are affecting the public's view of impartial justice, the court decided that in some "extreme" cases, the risk of bias violates the constitutional guarantee of due process.
A five-member majority of the court decided that West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin erred in participating in a case overturning a $50 million verdict against a company headed by a man who spent $3 million on the justice's election.
"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 M. Kennedy.
The case -- similar in plot to a best-selling John Grisham novel -- has drawn a spotlight on the skyrocketing costs of judicial elections, especially state Supreme Court races. The Justice at Stake Campaign, an advocacy coalition, notes that state supreme court candidates -- 39 states, including Maryland, elect judges -- raised almost $168 million from 2000 to 2007, nearly double the amount raised during the 1990s.
Among the most prominent critics of the campaign spending is former justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was in the packed courtroom during oral arguments in the case in March.
The majority decision did not address the question of whether electing judges is a wise policy -- federal judges are appointed -- but groups who have criticized campaign contributions to judges welcomed the attention. "It's a big win and a signal that the U.S. Supreme Court is keeping an eye on how judicial elections are changing," said Bert Brandenburg, executive director of Justice at Stake.
...
The case was brought by Hugh Caperton, the owner of a small coal company who convinced a jury that the business tactics of A.T. Massey Coal and its chief executive, Don Blankenship, drove Caperton's company into bankruptcy. The jury awarded $50 million.
In the next statewide election, Blankenship spent $3 million to oppose a state Supreme Court justice he disliked and to elect newcomer Brent Benjamin. When Massey's appeal of the award came to the high court, Benjamin refused to recuse himself, and he twice cast the decisive vote in 3 to 2 decisions overturning the verdict.
Caperton asked the court to send the case back to the West Virginia high court for a hearing without Benjamin. The award at stake is now worth more than $80 million because of interest.
The majority did not question Benjamin's own findings of his impartiality or determine whether he fostered actual bias, saying that was not necessary.
Caperton said in an interview that he was gratified by the decision. "You can't be in this for 11 years without being an optimist," he said, adding that the decision is beneficial "not just for me but for a whole lot of people around the country who expect fairness" in the judiciary.
The case, Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., roiled West Virginia politics and the state's high court. One other justice was defeated for reelection when photos surfaced of him vacationing with Blankenship in Monaco.
...
To Read the Rest of the Report
No comments:
Post a Comment