Washington – U.S. Supreme Court: Judges Can’t Rule When Parties Involved Are Campaign Contributers

    21

    Washington – 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.

    Join our WhatsApp group

    Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email


    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.

    The coal company, Harman Mining Co., and its president, Hugh Caperton, took the case to the high court.

    ”Not every campaign contribution by a litigant or attorney creates a probability of bias that requires a judge’s recusal, but this is an exceptional case,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the court.

    Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens joined Kennedy’s opinion.

    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.


    Listen to the VINnews podcast on:

    iTunes | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Podbean | Amazon

    Follow VINnews for Breaking News Updates


    Connect with VINnews

    Join our WhatsApp group


    21 Comments
    Most Voted
    Newest Oldest
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
    shlemiel
    shlemiel
    14 years ago

    Logically, I don’t ubderstand the dissent from the conservative judges. The bios is so obvious.

    Theolgically, there definetly wrong.. “Ki Hashochad Yaveir, etc”.

    Charlie Hall
    Charlie Hall
    14 years ago

    The decision of the majority would seem to be in keeping with the standard required for a Dayan in a Jewish court. Are Noachide Courts held to similar standards?

    Milhouse
    Milhouse
    14 years ago

    There’s a major point of fact that the article, and the majority decision, misstates. Contrary to the majority’s claims, Blankenship was NOT a major contributor to Justice Benjamin’s campaign. He only gave $1000. He also spent about $3M of his own accord, campaigning against McGraw and for Benjamin. If he felt that McGraw was a bad judge and Benjamin would make a better one, he was of course completely right to do so. More to the point, Benjamin had no way to control how that money was spent, and could easily have been unhappy about it; what’s to stop someone from deliberately campaigning for a judge in order to force his recusal from a case? And if this counts as a “contribution” then every newspaper that makes an endorsement in an election, or whose coverage was favourable to one side, has also made a “contribution”!

    It seems to me that campaigning for a judge is rather like contributing to the fund that pays judges’ salaries, which the Shulchan Aruch explicitly rules is not a bribe, and does not create a cause for recusal. Making sure that judges’ salaries are paid is a mitzvah; surely so is making sure that quality judges are picked. If a judge feels a particular debt of gratitude to one party, then of course he ought to recuse himself; but if he does not feel such a debt then he can’t be made to recuse himself anyway.

    Satmar Man
    Satmar Man
    14 years ago

    I would have to go with the Dissenting opinion.

    Though in many cases a judge SHOULD recuse himself, making it mandatory for any a judge to recuse if anyone involved on either side of a case has made any contributions to his election would and will create situations where the best judges have to step down from the largest cases.

    It is the largest litigants who often are the corporations who could afford to donate money to help a good justice be elected. This would mean that their very donations could prevent them from receiving a fair trial.

    Also, if a “Liberal” judge recuses himself because litigant “A” contributed to him, that itself will bias Conservatives against said litigant, and Liberals towards said litigant.
    the same would go for the reverse. If a “Conservative” judge would recuse himself because his election was supported by litigant “A”, the Liberals would have feelings in opposition to this litigant, and the Conservatives in favor.

    You may wind up with an entirely prejudicial bench, instead of the one judge.
    If the judge recuses voluntarily, that is great. But, he may feel that he is uniquely qualified to rule on this case, as he may have a better understanding of the business or industry, or science involved, etc., and feel that his recusal would diminish the quality of the judging panel.

    My vote is for the dissent. Again, the best mind on the Court is correct.

    Bais Din Accountability
    Bais Din Accountability
    14 years ago

    Dayanim and Bais Din’s MUST be required to undergo rigorous audits of contributors and potential conflicts of interest prior to two parties din Torah proceedings.

    This is a good day for all pesakei din that are brought to court to reaffirm an arbitration agreement. If it can be proven that any dayan had a conflict of interest, the psak can be overturned in court,.

    me
    me
    14 years ago

    What an original novel idea! …

    Except that it says that in Rambam Hilchos Shoftim 23:6