Judges and 'Bias': The Supremes trample on state courts.

The march away from a credible, accountable judiciary took another leap yesterday, as a 5-4 Supreme Court majority gave federal judges unprecedented oversight of state court recusal standards. This is more damaging than it sounds.

West Virginia's Massey coal company CEO Don Blankenship spent some $3 million in 2004 on the judicial election of Brent Benjamin to the state Supreme Court of Appeals, including donations to outside groups. When a case involving Massey later came before Judge Benjamin's court and he ruled in favor of Massey, the loser sued and claimed a denial of due process because the judge didn't recuse himself. According to the Supreme Court's majority in Caperton v. Massey, a judge who receives support that has a "significant and disproportionate influence" on his election can't then be trusted to be neutral on the bench.

Heretofore, judges needed to recuse themselves on due process grounds only if they had a direct financial interest in a case, and in criminal contempt cases in which the judge provoked the original courtroom outburst. Under Justice Anthony Kennedy's Caperton standard, judges must now recuse if there is a "probability of bias." But this would seem to be open to, well, judicial interpretation. If $3 million in donations meets the probable bias test, what about $1 million, or $10,000? For that matter, should we assume judges feel a "debt of hostility" toward those who contribute to opponents?

In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts lists 40 questions that represent only "a few uncertainties that quickly come to mind." The majority opinion "requires state and federal judges simultaneously to act as political scientists (why did candidate X win the election?), economists (was the financial support disproportionate?) and psychologists (is there likely to be a debt of gratitude?)"

If there are no elections for judges and they are selected "impartially" by committees of (left-leaning) lawyers, there are no "tainted" campaign contributions. The editorial goes on to explain that left-wing groups are trying to do away with judicial elections.

Here's a small example -- in an NYT story yesterday Death Penalty Case Reveals the Blemishes in Alabama’s Courts noted that Alabama "elects judges for whom death sentences are a campaign promise". The "problem" is that the benighted public is more supportive of the death penalty than the "anointed" (to use Thomas Sowell's terminology).

Wasn’t this more about a judge’s bias and recusal? I don’t know a whole lot about this case but it sounded like the judge really did have a big stake in how he ruled on this case.

If he should have recused himself, why didn’t he? Now he’s done more harm to states’ rights as a result.

Just wondering, someone correct me if I am not understanding this clearly.

I believe you’re correct. Judge Benjamin had a blatant conflict of interest. When I first read about the SCOTUS decision, I was amazed at the positions held by the two factions, left and right. My immediate emotional response was in support of the majority until I understood the minority position. Roberts wrote the minority opinion. Essentially it’s another one of those SCOTUS decisions that sounds great until you start thinking about how to implement it. For example, they didn’t establish a relatively black and white standard for determining when a conflict of interest exists. That should have been left up to the States to decide. States certainly have the capability to write standards for their judges. Once again the SCOTUS intrudes where it was not meant to go.

Not accurate - regarding the WV recusal law in question:

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/homepage/x808411314

That process calls on justices to disqualify themselves from any proceeding in which their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Ruling in a case where one of the parties in question spent $3 mil to help get you elected (more than all other contributions in the race combined) would be more than sufficient to meet the threshhold of “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Since the judge failed to apply the law rationally to the case and recuse himself, it becomes a due process matter, and almost all of the 5th Amendment has been incorporated, including the due process clause.

I guess the WSJ just doesn't want some dude to have the best judges money can buy on his side. Bad for business, you know.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.