In Arkansas, we elect all our judges but at least they all run without a party label attached.
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Cold Water <[email protected]> wrote: > *Case May Alter Judge Elections Across Country* By ADAM > LIPTAK<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/adam_liptak/index.html?inline=nyt-per> > > MATEWAN, W.Va. — Don L. Blankenship, the chief executive of the nation's > fourth-biggest coal mining company, is not shy about putting his money where > his mouth is when it comes to West > Virginia<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/westvirginia/index.html?inline=nyt-geo>politics. > > In 2004, he spent $3 million on tough advertisements attacking a justice of > the State Supreme Court who was seeking re-election. Some of the > advertisements said the justice had agreed to free a sex offender. > > "I thought we would beat him more easily than we did," Mr. Blankenship > said, reflecting on how hard it was to persuade voters. > > Brent D. Benjamin won that election and went on to join the 3-to-2 majority > that threw out a $50 million jury verdict against Mr. Blankenship's company, > Massey Energy. > > The question of whether Justice Benjamin should have disqualified himself > is now before the United States Supreme > Court<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html?inline=nyt-org> > . > > The case, one of the most important of the term, has the potential to > change the way judicial elections are conducted and the way cases are heard > in the 39 states that elect at least some of their judges. In many states, > campaigns for court seats these days rival in both expense and venom what > goes on in, say, a governor's race. Yet it is commonplace in American > courtrooms for judges to hear cases involving lawyers and litigants who have > contributed to or spent money to support their campaigns. > > Mr. Blankenship, a large man with small eyes that betray nothing, does not > often sit for interviews. When ABC News tried to ask him questions last year > about pictures showing him in Monte Carlo with yet another State Supreme > Court justice, he shoved a cameraman and suggested that someone was "liable > to get shot" if the journalists persisted. > > But Mr. Blankenship seemed eager to tell his side of things over a barbecue > chicken lunch in a restaurant here and in the warren of trailers that serve > as his office just over the Kentucky line. It is just foolishness, he said, > to think that he had spent millions of dollars to gain an advantage in a > particular case. > > "I've been around West Virginia long enough to know that politicians don't > stay bought, particularly ones that are going to be in office for 12 years," > he said, referring to the terms of State Supreme Court justices. "So I would > never go out and spend money to try to gain favor with a politician. > Eliminating a bad politician makes sense. Electing somebody hoping he's > going to be in your favor doesn't make any sense at all." > > "Massey always has cases," he added. Indeed, the company is a frequent > plaintiff, and it has attracted lawsuits over environmental, workplace > safety and labor issues. > > "If someone wanted to accuse me of something," Mr. Blankenship continued, > "they would accuse me of trying to elect Benjamin to rule in our favor in > hundreds of cases, not one case." > > But that is precisely what some people here, including a retired member of > the State Supreme Court, say happened. "We have one justice who was bought > by Don Blankenship," Justice Larry V. Starcher said of Justice Benjamin in > 2006, while the two men were colleagues on the court. "It makes me want to > puke." > > When the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in November, > much of the legal establishment cheered. Here was an opportunity, bar > associations and law professors said, to draw a line separating big money > from judicial decision making. > > But briefs from Massey and its supporters suggest that the case, Caperton > v. A. T. Massey Coal, No. 08-22, which will be argued on March 3, is more > complicated than it first appears. > > Mr. Blankenship was, for starters, not a party to the state court fraud > case that gave rise to the $50 million verdict. He is not an especially > large shareholder of Massey, and he does not stand to win or lose very much > — about $175,000, by Massey's estimates — from its outcome. > > On the other hand, Massey has paid Mr. Blankenship handsomely over the > years — $23.7 million in salary, bonus, options and other compensation in > 2007, by some estimates — and it is hard to disentangle his interests from > those of the company. > > His direct contribution to the Benjamin campaign was only $1,000, although > that is the maximum allowed by law, and he spent most of the $3 million, > paid from his own pocket, on television advertisements aimed at defeating > the incumbent justice, Warren R. McGraw. > > Mr. Blankenship said he was surprised they were not even more effective. > "When you've got to choose between a guy who released a pedophile and a coal > executive, it's a tossup," he said. > > Mr. Blankenship, who has long been an active participant in the state's > political life, said he had no social or other relationship with Justice > Benjamin, who has voted against Massey at least five times. > > "Brent Benjamin, rightfully or wrongfully, thinks I had nothing to do with > his election," Mr. Blankenship said. > > Justice Benjamin, now the court's chief justice, declined to be interviewed > for this article. In rulings discussing whether he should have disqualified > himself from the case, he said he could be fair and impartial. > > In a memorandum on Jan. 30, though, Chief Justice Benjamin did temporarily > disqualify himself from all Massey cases, saying "it would be personally and > judicially disrespectful to the United States Supreme Court and its justices > for me to proceed." > > Lawyers for Massey suggest that the case is a Trojan horse whose real > intent is to do away with judicial elections because any spending in such > elections is suspect. "Any impartiality concerns raised by campaign spending > are inherent in the state's decision to hold judicial elections," James Bopp > Jr. wrote in a brief supporting Massey for the James Madison Center for Free > Speech. > > The briefs on Massey's side add that states should be allowed to run their > legal systems as they see fit. It would be impossible, they say, to fashion > a sensible rule to determine when contributions or independent expenditures > should require recusal under the federal Constitution's due process clause. > The other side says it has no problem with elections or financial support. > But in rare cases involving especially large amounts from the people > involved, they say, judges should be required to disqualify themselves. > > Mr. Blankenship's advertisements, which said Justice McGraw had released a > pedophile, were rough and arguably misleading. They concerned a youth who > had been sexually abused from the age of 7 by two adult family members and a > teacher before going on, at the age of 14, to abuse a younger half-brother. > The youth was released on probation soon after he turned 18. > > "I'm just a West Virginia country lawyer running for office," Justice > McGraw said. Of the advertisements, he said: "They say our court set a child > molester loose in our schools. It's absolutely untrue. I'm embarrassed to go > out in public. They've absolutely destroyed me." > > Mr. Blankenship cheerfully conceded that his real objection was to Justice > McGraw's rulings against corporate defendants. "Being the street fighter > that I am," he said, he had instructed his aides to find a decision that > would enrage the public. > > When they returned with an unsigned opinion in the sex abuse case, which > Justice McGraw had joined, Mr. Blankenship said he knew he had hit pay dirt. > "That killed him," Mr. Blankenship said of Justice McGraw, smiling. > > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/washington/15scotus.html?_r=1&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print > > > > -- *~@):~{> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
