The justices, in a 5-4 ruling, say a West Virginia Supreme Court judge who received $3 million in campaign contributions should have recused himself from a case in which the donor was the defendant.

Reporting from Washington -- The Supreme Court today ruled for the first time that a state judge who wins an election thanks to huge contributions from a person or company must step aside from deciding a case involving that individual or his company.

This sort of conflict creates a real risk of "actual bias" and violates the Constitution's guarantees of due process of law, the justices said.

The 5-4 decision came in the case of Don Blankenship, a West Virginia coal company executive who spent $3 million to help win election for a new justice to the West Virginia Supreme Court. The new justice, Brent Benjamin, then cast the deciding vote -- twice -- to throw out a $50-million jury verdict against Blankenship's Massey Coal Company.

The West Virginia case put a spotlight on the growing concern over the impact of money in state judicial cases. In several states, particularly in the Midwest and South, election contests for the state supreme court have become big-money battles waged between corporate interests and trial lawyers. Judges in Illinois and some judges in California are elected.

In today's decision, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy called the facts in the West Virginia case extreme because of the amount spent by Blankenship and by its impact on a pending case. He said the Constitution's principle of fairness required Benjamin to remove himself from Massey's case.

"Blankenship's extraordinary contributions were made at a time when he had a vested stake in the outcome," Kennedy said. "Just as no man is allowed to be the judge in his own cause, similar fears of bias can arise when -- without the consent of other parties -- a man chooses the judge in his own cause. And applying this principle to the judicial election process, there was here a serious, objective risk of actual bias that required Justice Benjamin's recusal."

"Our decision today addresses an extraordinary situation where the Constitution requires recusal," he added.

Hugh Caperton, whose small company was driven into bankruptcy by Massey, had appealed the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court after the West Virginia ruling.

The case of Caperton vs. A.T. Massey Coal split Kennedy's colleagues along the usual liberal-conservative lines.

Kennedy's opinion was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Supreme Court rules that campaign contributions can create perception of judicial bias - Los Angeles Times



THREE MILLION dollar donation.
And along liberal / conservative lines, the conservatives refused to recognize the bias situation...

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

Come...let us reason together...

__________________

The Pessimist complains about the wind.
The Optimist expects it to change.
The Realist adjust the sails - William A. Ward

If I were in a state in which judges were elected I'd be SCREAMING to get the system changed immediately!

So did the liberals. Kennedy even says that in his opinion. However, it's never so simple as that when it comes to Supreme Court rulings.

Here are some of the reasons for dissent:

I find those arguments reasonable and agree with them. That's not to say I don't agree that there was potential bias and the judge should have recused himself. I just think this cure as Justice Roberts said is worse than the disease. There's now a vague standard that every state is going to have to try to interepret...

__________________
Dudes ... you're just NOT THAT MUCH ****ING SMARTER than all of us. GET OVER YOURSELVES!
-- Me, to President Obama and the rest of his self-loving amateur staff.

5-4?!?!?!?...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

"Slippery slope" works both ways.

For some, they argue "you can't allow this, otherwise 'that' will happen"
But for the flip side, you have "you can't restrict this, otherwise 'that' could also be restricted"

At the end of the day, this donation was $3 million dollars.
The dissenters are saying you cannot even draw a line at $3 million dollars.

Okay. So can we draw a line at $5 million?
$15 million?
$105 million?
The dissenters are refusing to say it's wrong for fear of the consequences.
Quite frankly, while we may not agree on WHERE the line should be drawn, the NEED FOR A LINE is irrefutable.

We have gone from recusing judges when there is a PERCEPTION of bias, to demanding that judges shouldn't have to be recused over OBVIOUS PROBLEMS of bias.
And THAT is a slippery slope as well...

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

Appointing judges is also political.
Anyone care to offer a solution?

Appointing judges is LESS political than electing them. Theoretically at least a State Supreme Court nominee has to go through a bit more scrutiny. Realistically the same candidate doesn't.

I guess you could call me out here. I'm always for democracy but not in this scenario. Judges shouldn't be voted in to STATE level positions, because at some point money influences too much.

The judiciary should be about legal competence, not bribe money or perceived bribe money as is the case. Either way the SCOTUS ruling doesn't address that.

A more proper thing would have been to throw the case out.

Save that, it should have been thrown back to the states that still elect judges.

As it stands, the vague SCOTUS ruling simply invites the next lawsuit.

__________________
Dudes ... you're just NOT THAT MUCH ****ING SMARTER than all of us. GET OVER YOURSELVES!
-- Me, to President Obama and the rest of his self-loving amateur staff.

But drawing that line is not the Supreme Court's role. You can read the dissenting opinions, so please do so. The very first thing Roberts is quoted as saying is that this is a case where the cure might be worse than the disease. States who have elected judges need to make LAWS regarding these things because this ruling solves nothing.

__________________
Dudes ... you're just NOT THAT MUCH ****ING SMARTER than all of us. GET OVER YOURSELVES!
-- Me, to President Obama and the rest of his self-loving amateur staff.