Court (SCOTUS) says judges must avoid appearance of bias (WV case)

[Bozita]

Source: AP

Court says judges must avoid appearance of bias
By MARK SHERMAN – 30 minutes ago


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that elected judges must step aside from cases when large campaign contributions from interested parties create the appearance of bias.

By a 5-4 vote in a case from West Virginia, the court said that a judge who remained involved in a lawsuit filed against the company of the most generous supporter of his election deprived the other side of the constitutional right to a fair trial.

With multimillion-dollar judicial election campaigns on the rise, the court's decision Monday could have widespread significance. Justice at Stake, which tracks campaign spending in judicial elections, says judges are elected in 39 states and that candidates for the highest state courts have raised more than $168 million since 2000.

The West Virginia case involved more than $3 million spent by the chief executive of Massey Energy Co. to help elect state Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin. At the same time, Massey was appealing a verdict, which now totals $82.7 million with interest, in a dispute with a local coal company. Benjamin refused to step aside from the case, despite repeated requests, and was part of a 3-2 decision to overturn the verdict.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iPNVGiBF6ZGZuPdOaZrm8Nrwll2wD98MHREG0

---

IIRC, CBS' 60 Minutes covered the story behind this case a couple of years ago.

[Buzz Clik]

1. Thank God! Maybe we can start getting money off the bench.

[Doctor_J]

2. You mean like when Fat Tony refused to recuse himself from cases

involving his "hunting buddy" Cheney?

[MADem]

3. Well, time for Fat Tony Scalia to retire, then! NT

[Psychic Consortium]

4. The widespread corruption of American officials must stop. nt

[shanti]

6. just to be fair

it's not just american officials. it happens everywhere. money talks.

[Psychic Consortium]

8. You are correct. The global corruption of public servants needs to stop. nt

[Captain Hilts]

5. After 200 years of bias? nt

[bananas]

7. Does that mean they can overturn Bush v Gore?

[leftyclimber]

9. Well. About damn time.

Then again, if that many judges are forced to recuse themselves simultaneously so only the not-bought-and-sold variety are on the bench, might there be some sort of rip in the space/time continuum or something?

[w4rma]

10. Very good. This means that companies cannot give money to judges for election campaigns

or else they endanger future court cases since that judge wouldn't be able to sit on any court case that interests them directly.

[never cry wolf]

11. Gee, I wonder who the 4 dissenting votes were! Guess...

Yep, you got it, our reich wing corruption supporters:

"Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in dissent that he shares concerns about maintaining an impartial judiciary. "But I fear that the court's decision will undermine rather than promote these values," Roberts said.

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also dissented."

[Downwinder]

13. Did Roberts say his concerns were with or against an impartial judiciary? n/t

[Wizard777]

12. This is a most wise if not very timely decision.

It now appears the Judicial Code of Conduct is alive and well.

[caseymoz]

14. This should have been a no-brainer.

I'm surprised there had to be a case about this. The fact that the whole right wing of the court dissented-- says something.

[elleng]

15. Supreme Court Says Judges Must Avoid Appearance of Bias.

Source: WaPo

The Supreme Court ruled today that elected judges must recuse themselves in "extreme" cases where huge campaign contributions create the perception that they will be biased in favor of their campaign benefactors.

A five-member majority of the court decided a West Virginia Supreme Court justice erred in participating in a case overturning a $50 million verdict against a company headed by a man who spent $3 million on the justice's election.

The court today said the perception of bias was so great that it violated the constitutional rights of the man who brought the suit.


Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/08/AR2009060801366.html?hpid=topnews

[Mz Pip]

16. Seems obvious

but the hubris of some are what brings about these cases in the first place.

[KansDem]

17. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Bush v Gore:rofl:Bush v Gore:rofl:Bush v Gore:rofl:Bush v Gore:rofl:Bush v Gore:rofl:Bush v Gore:rofl:Bush v Gore:rofl:Bush v Gore:rofl:Bush v Gore:rofl:Bush v Gore:rofl:

[Journeyman]

19. Touché! . . .

[neuvocat]

25. You nailed it.

I think they're struggling pretty hard to distance themselves from that decision. They won't make it.

[ConcernedCanuk]

27. +1

.
.
.

:thumbsup:

[downindixie]

18. OMG! What will Scalia do now?

Its true that they should excuse themselves---Forever!

[catrose]

23. My first thought

quack quack

[Wizard777]

26. Have Sotomayor make the better decision.

Well you asked.

[ConcernedCanuk]

28. Memories

.
.
.




Some things never change

[benny05]

20. and the case is going back to the State court

without that judge to get another ruling.

I bet John Grisham is smiling.

:toast: :bounce:

[Captain Hilts]

21. It's only bias when it is not old, white men doing it. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

22. We'll see.

Sotomayor may recuse herself on the incorporation of Heller vs. DC, due to her decision in the 2nd Circuit Court, which is at odds with the opposite decision in the 9th Circuit.

If she is confirmed, we shall see.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

24. I can't wait to see how this plays in Texas

I think 60 Minutes does a segment every year on how bad the judicial campaign contributions screw up the judicial system here. Perhaps that particular teat will now run dry.

[nichomachus]

29. However, they will still be allowed to rule

in favor of the politicians who gave them their lifetime appointments.