A 5-4 Vote for Justice
Monday, June 15th, 2009
Many cases brought before the United States Supreme Court raise complex and difficult legal issues. Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. was not one of those cases. Your standard 6th grade social studies class could have heard and ruled on that case. The fact that the Court split 5-4 on Caperton does, however, make one wonder which planet some justices live on.
The Capterton case involved a verdict in an injury lawsuit that was overturned by the West Virginia Supreme Court. The defendant had close ties to the state court’s chief justice and, more critical, was a major campaign donor for one other judge who heard the case and voted to overturn the verdict.
The case brought together the issues of corporate accountability and a fair and impartial judiciary. These are both critical issues for people suffering from mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. Most asbestos exposure occurs on the job, and many patients sue for damages to get the money they need to take care of themselves and their families.
The case: A West Virginia businessman, Hugh Caperton, sued A.T. Massey Coal and won a $50 million verdict. Massey chairman and CEO Don Blankenship decided to appeal. But first he tried to stack the deck.
Blankenship took a look at the West Virginia Supreme Court (whose judges are elected) and decided one judge, Warren McGraw, had to go. McGraw was, Blankenship thought, too liberal and “anti-business.” So Blankenship spent $3 million in vicious attack ads to destroy McGraw and elect his own man, Brent Benjamin, to the state court.
And, sure enough, when the appeal of the $50 million verdict came before the state Supreme Court, Benjamin refused to recuse himself. The state supreme court ruled to overturn the verdict, 3-2, with Benjamin in the majority.
According to veteran reporter Blake Fleetwood, Massey CEO Blankenship also became “very chummy” with West Virginia Supreme Court Chief Justice Elliott Maynard. Maynard insisted his friendship with Blankenship would not affect his impartiality. But then photographs of Blankenship and Maynard vacationing in Monaco with two female companions were published in West Virginia newspapers. Maynard reluctantly stepped down from the case.
The question Hugh Caperton took to the U.S. Supreme Court was "whether Justice Benjamin’s failure to recuse himself from participation in his principal financial supporter’s case violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." And the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that it did.
Carl Hiaasen wrote in the Miami Herald, “The four dissenters were the lockstep conservatives — Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John G. Roberts. They predicted the court’s decision will trigger a flurry of unfounded recusal motions and shake the public’s faith in the judiciary.”
I can only assume these four think the “the public” is extremely stupid.
The majority opinion of the court did not say that Benjamin was biased. It said simply that judges have a responsibility to remove themselves from cases that involve large donors. Like I said, the average 6th grade social studies class could have figured that out.
But Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “The end result will do far more to erode public confidence in judicial impartiality than an isolated failure to recuse in a particular case.” To which I ask, on what planet?
June 15, 2009
Barbara O’Brien
