Litigation

Editorials Decry ?Justice for Sale,? Urge Recusal Reform

By Lissette Villarruel

Three editorials have called for recusal reform, arguing that the current judicial election system has led the public to believe that justice is for sale.

The inspiration for these opinions is Caperton v. Massey, a West Virginia case involving a coal company CEO who spent $3 million to help elect a state supreme court justice who overturned a $50 million lawsuit against the company. While the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for the case on March 3, the issue of judicial recusal is still being debated.

Calling for changes in recusal standards, an editorial in the Detroit Free Press states that:

Judges who participate in decisions benefiting their own campaign donors promote the perception that justice is a commodity for sale to the highest bidder. The need to protect litigants from such egregious influence peddling is obvious. Federal justices can help by establishing a clear constitutional baseline for judicial impartiality.

A more beneficial solution would entail reforming judicial elections, campaign funding, and recusal standards. The editorial said Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Marilyn Kelly is encouraging public debate over recusal standards, and her colleagues should support her efforts. (more…)

Full post as published by The Gavel on March 06, 2009 (boomark / email).