HONEST JUSTICE
JUDICIAL CORRUPTION CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION,
QUID PRO QUO IN ONE OF MANY WAYS.
June 9, 2009
EDITORIAL
The right to a fair hearing before an impartial judge, untainted by money or special interests, is at the heart of the nation’s justice system and the rule of law. That right is more secure following a 5-to-4 ruling on Monday by the United States Supreme Court.
The case involved some egregious ethical myopia on the part of Justice Brent Benjamin of the West Virginia Supreme Court. Justice Benjamin, who is now the state’s chief justice, twice cast the deciding vote to throw out a $50 million verdict against Massey Energy, one of the country’s biggest coal companies. He sat in judgment on the case even though Massey’s chief executive, Don Blankenship, spent an extraordinary $3 million to help Justice Benjamin get elected to the state’s top court.
In Monday’s decision, the majority correctly found that Justice Benjamin’s failure to recuse himself from a case involving his major campaign supporter — which John Grisham has cited as an inspiration for one of his legal thrillers — amounted to a Constitutional violation.
Justice Kennedy said that no “quid pro quo” connection has been established between Mr. Blankenship’s campaign spending, which far surpassed those of other donors in the judicial elections, and Justice Benjamin’s position in the lawsuit. Nevertheless, the “serious, objective risk of actual bias” required Justice Benjamin to recuse himself, and his failure to do so endangered the plaintiff’s due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, Justice Kennedy said.
In a dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts said he was concerned that the majority’s ruling will lead to an increase in allegations that judges are biased. We believe that risk is exaggerated. More important, this ruling comes at a moment when judicial neutrality and the appearance of neutrality is under a severe threat from big money state judicial campaigns and the special interest money that fuels them.
The majority’s recognition of the threat posed by outsize contributions amounts to a crucial statement that judges and justice are not for sale.
Indeed, the only truly alarming thing about Monday’s decision was that it was not unanimous. The case drew an unusual array of friend-of-court briefs from across the political spectrum, and such an extreme case about an ethical matter that should transcend ideology should have united all nine justices.
Chief Justice Roberts is fond of likening a judge’s role to that of a baseball umpire. It is hard to imagine that professional baseball or its fans would trust the fairness of an umpire who accepted $3 million from one of the teams.
In Monday’s decision, the majority correctly found that Justice Benjamin’s failure to recuse himself from a case involving his major campaign supporter — which John Grisham has cited as an inspiration for one of his legal thrillers — amounted to a Constitutional violation.
Justice Kennedy said that no “quid pro quo” connection has been established between Mr. Blankenship’s campaign spending, which far surpassed those of other donors in the judicial elections, and Justice Benjamin’s position in the lawsuit. Nevertheless, the “serious, objective risk of actual bias” required Justice Benjamin to recuse himself, and his failure to do so endangered the plaintiff’s due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, Justice Kennedy said.
In a dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts said he was concerned that the majority’s ruling will lead to an increase in allegations that judges are biased. We believe that risk is exaggerated. More important, this ruling comes at a moment when judicial neutrality and the appearance of neutrality is under a severe threat from big money state judicial campaigns and the special interest money that fuels them.
The majority’s recognition of the threat posed by outsize contributions amounts to a crucial statement that judges and justice are not for sale.
Indeed, the only truly alarming thing about Monday’s decision was that it was not unanimous. The case drew an unusual array of friend-of-court briefs from across the political spectrum, and such an extreme case about an ethical matter that should transcend ideology should have united all nine justices.
Chief Justice Roberts is fond of likening a judge’s role to that of a baseball umpire. It is hard to imagine that professional baseball or its fans would trust the fairness of an umpire who accepted $3 million from one of the teams.
