U.S. Supreme Court says judgeships can’t be bought

U.S. Supreme Court says judgeships can’t be bought

In a decision that was most remarkable by the narrow margin by which it was reached, the Supreme Court of the United States acknowledged that there are times when a judge’s conflict of interest becomes so clear that he must remove himself from a case.

Given the egregious nature of the example placed before the court, it would not have taken most people months to decide, nor would the vote have been close.

There is little doubt that Justice Brent Benjamin would not have a seat on the West Virginia Supreme Court had it not been for the $3 million spent by Don Blankenship, chairman and CEO of the Massey Coal Co., to discredit Benjamin’s opponent, incumbent Justice Warren McGraw.

Benjamin defeated McGraw in the 2004 election, then, in 2006, a case came before the court in which Massey Coal was appealing a $50 million verdict against the company and in favor of Hugh Caperton, a coal company executive.

Caperton asked Benjamin to remove himself from the case, saying there was an appearance of bias since the justice had been the beneficiary of Massey’s campaign to unseat McGraw.

Benjamin refused and eventually was the deciding vote in a 3-2 court order that invalidated Caperton’s $50 million jury verdict.

High Court speaks

In its ruling last week, the U.S. Supreme Court found a sufficient appearance of impropriety that Benjamin should have removed himself.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy treated Benjamin kindly, saying: “We do not question his subjective findings of impartiality and propriety. Nor do we determine whether there was actual bias.” But, Kennedy added, “Just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, similar fears of bias can arise when — without the consent of the other parties — a man chooses the judge in his own cause.” By spending $3 million to defeat McGraw, Blankenship managed to stack the deck — or at least give the appearance of having done so.

It would seem obvious that most people would not feel they were getting a fair hearing under the circumstances, and when most people have reason to wonder whether justice is for sale, the judiciary suffers.

That’s how Kennedy saw it, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

But to hear Chief Justice John Roberts’ stinging dissent, it was the court majority that was undermining faith in the impartiality of the courts.

“This will inevitably lead to an increase in allegations that judges are biased, however groundless those charges may be,” the chief justice said. “The end result will do far more to erode public confidence in judicial impartiality than an isolated failure to recuse in a particular case.” Roberts was joined in dissent by Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Apparently Caperton was supposed to be content to see his $50 million jury award sacrificed to preserve the image of judicial impartiality.

A myopic view

The Supreme Court has long believed that only a justice on the court could decide whether his or her impartiality is in question. That policy has given us such spectacles as Justice Scalia flying off on a private jet for a hunting trip with then-Vice President Dick Cheney even as the court was being asked to decide important legal questions involving Cheney’s claims of executive privilege.

The dissent would indicate that the justices, who are appointed for life to remove them as much as possible from political or economic pressures, would extend the same level of self-criticism to judges whose political survival depends multi-million dollar election campaigns. It is amazing how quickly some people in Washington can become out of touch with real politics — or at least give the impression of having done so.

West Virginia owes a debt of gratitude to the Supreme Court majority, as does Ohio, where members of the Supreme Court are also elected.

The court has sent a message that the rich and influential may be able to buy an election, but the other guy gets a fair shot at having a compromised jurist removed from his case.

If that becomes an inconvenience, as Roberts seems to think it will, so be it.