Monday
Jun082009
Supreme Court Rules Against West Virginia Justice
By Celia Canon- Talk Radio News Service
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that West Virginia Justice Brent Benjamin should have recused himself when holding a Court hearing in 2007, which involved an important contributor to Benjamin’s election campaign conducted three years prior.
The decision came after the Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 on whether Justice Benjamin Brent, who had been elected in 2004 following a $3 million donation from Massey Coal Company’s Chairman Don Blankenship, should have recused himself when ruling over the Hugh M. Caperton, et al. v. Massey & Co case.
In 2002, a West Virginia jury found Massey Coal & Co. liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, concealment and tortious interference with existing contractual relations. The jury condemned Massey & Co to $50 million to be awarded to the plaintiff, Caperton et al. in June, 2004. Massey & Co filed for appeal but its demand was rejected by the state trial court.
In 2004, West Virginia held it judicial elections. Massey & Co sponsored Brent Benjamin rather than the incumbent Justice so as to renew the possibilities of appealing but before Massey & Co filed its appeal, Caperton moved to prevent this by calling attention to the Due Process Clause and to the State's Code of Judicial Conduct based on Massey & Co’s campaign involvement.
The Due Process Clause under the 14th amendment of the U.S constitution ensures that no state should “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Additionally, the Code of Judicial Conduct states that “A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct, and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved,” according to the U.S Courts online.
Despite receiving important funding from the party found liable in the Caperton v. Massey case during his judicial campaign, Justice Benjamin refused to recuse himself, and this for a total of three times.
The controversial topic involved whether or not to trust Judicial figures’ capability to remain unbiased when ruling on a question that involves a personal dimension.
In an interpretation Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered, he said “Under our precedents there are objective standards that require recusal when ‘the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decision-maker is too high to be constitutionally of this case,” adding that the judgment of the State Supreme Court of West Virginia is dissented “for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”
Kennedy cited “risks of biases”, impartiality and “personal involvement” and the the foundations for the Supreme Court’s decision.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that West Virginia Justice Brent Benjamin should have recused himself when holding a Court hearing in 2007, which involved an important contributor to Benjamin’s election campaign conducted three years prior.
The decision came after the Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 on whether Justice Benjamin Brent, who had been elected in 2004 following a $3 million donation from Massey Coal Company’s Chairman Don Blankenship, should have recused himself when ruling over the Hugh M. Caperton, et al. v. Massey & Co case.
In 2002, a West Virginia jury found Massey Coal & Co. liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, concealment and tortious interference with existing contractual relations. The jury condemned Massey & Co to $50 million to be awarded to the plaintiff, Caperton et al. in June, 2004. Massey & Co filed for appeal but its demand was rejected by the state trial court.
In 2004, West Virginia held it judicial elections. Massey & Co sponsored Brent Benjamin rather than the incumbent Justice so as to renew the possibilities of appealing but before Massey & Co filed its appeal, Caperton moved to prevent this by calling attention to the Due Process Clause and to the State's Code of Judicial Conduct based on Massey & Co’s campaign involvement.
The Due Process Clause under the 14th amendment of the U.S constitution ensures that no state should “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Additionally, the Code of Judicial Conduct states that “A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct, and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved,” according to the U.S Courts online.
Despite receiving important funding from the party found liable in the Caperton v. Massey case during his judicial campaign, Justice Benjamin refused to recuse himself, and this for a total of three times.
The controversial topic involved whether or not to trust Judicial figures’ capability to remain unbiased when ruling on a question that involves a personal dimension.
In an interpretation Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered, he said “Under our precedents there are objective standards that require recusal when ‘the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decision-maker is too high to be constitutionally of this case,” adding that the judgment of the State Supreme Court of West Virginia is dissented “for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”
Kennedy cited “risks of biases”, impartiality and “personal involvement” and the the foundations for the Supreme Court’s decision.
tagged 
14th Amendment, Anthony Kenndy, Brent Benjamin, Caperton, Don Blankenship, Due Process Clause, Massey Coal Company, State's Code of Judicial Conduct, Supreme Court, U.S Courts online, appeal, contributor, controversy, election campaign, justice, state trial court, west virginia in Frontpage 2, News/Commentary, Supreme Court
14th Amendment, Anthony Kenndy, Brent Benjamin, Caperton, Don Blankenship, Due Process Clause, Massey Coal Company, State's Code of Judicial Conduct, Supreme Court, U.S Courts online, appeal, contributor, controversy, election campaign, justice, state trial court, west virginia in Frontpage 2, News/Commentary, Supreme Court
Changing 14th Amendment Will Expand Bureaucracy, Warns Immigration Attorney
Altering the 14th amendment to eliminate birthright citizenship would expand bureaucracy and could create a complicated birth registry, according to Margaret Stock, an immigration attorney and adjunct professor of political science at the University of Alaska Anchorage.
“If a state birth certificate is no longer presumptive proof that someone is an American then some government bureaucracy is going to have to make that decision,” Stock said during a briefing held Monday by the Libertarian CATO Institute. “It’s going to cost money, government agencies are going to get it wrong, so there’s going to be a lot of litigation, and were going to end up…with a National Birth Registry.”
The notion of altering the amendment as an attempt to stem the number of illegal immigrants coming to the United States has gained some traction within recent months, including from moderate Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
“I’m looking at the laws that exist and see if it makes sense today,” Graham said in a July interview with Fox News. “Birthright citizenship doesn’t make so much sense when you understand the world as it is.”