Litigation

Caperton Garners More Media Attention

By Lissette Villarruel

As Caperton v. Massey nears its hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 3, attention on the recusal case continues to grow. The LA Times released an article on the high-profile West Virginia case, and a Detroit Free Press opinion column focused on the question of recusal ?when cash, courts and politics mix.?

The LA Times article offers a detailed synopsis of Caperton v. Massey, the case in which West Virginia Justice Brent Benjamin refused to step aside from hearing an appeal involving Massey Energy, whose CEO Don Blankenship spent $3 million on Benjamin?s judicial campaign. The article described the series of events as a

saga of money, power and judicial politics in West Virginia [that] has prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to consider for the first time whether big spending on a judge?s election can create an unconstitutional “appearance of bias” that violates the guarantee of due process of law in the Constitution.

The LA Times goes on to highlight the controversy surrounding the appearance of bias in ?campaign-style races for judgeships.? While some argue that these types of races can support the notion that justice is for sale - including JAS Executive Director Bert Brandenburg, who is quoted discussing the specter of judges “dialing for dollars” - others declare that judges can independently determine if a bias does exist.

As the LA Times states, ?The question raised by the West Virginia case comes close to home for the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, some of whom have had their own recusal controversies. When must a judge step aside because there is a good reason to doubt he or she is impartial??

The Detroit Free Press column answers this question by urging the Supreme Court to declare that a ?judge cannot rule on a case involving anyone, any company, any group, that gave the judge money or otherwise helped the judge win his or her judgeship. This would: a) remove even the appearance of a conflict in the court system; b) save a lot of people a lot of money at campaign time.?

However, the column goes one step further, advocating that the 39 states that elect at least some of their judges switch to the federal system in which the legislative branch confirms judges nominated by the executed branch. If not, then public financing of judicial campaigns and full disclosure of campaign contributors would be another beneficial solution to the problem of the special interests ??investing?? money in getting judges elected.

Still, the column concedes that such drastic changes are not very likely to occur. But the controversy might be easier than the legal minds of Caperton may be suggesting, because ?it doesn?t take a law degree to pass a smell test.?

To find out more about Caperton v. Massey, you can visit the Justice at Stake Caperton resource page.

Full post as published by The Gavel on February 23, 2009 (boomark / email).