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
Things Get "Massey" At National Press Club Luncheon
Robert Hune-Kalter - Talk Radio News Service
Don Blankenship, CEO of Massey Energy Company spoke at the National Press Club Thursday but tensions ran high as three protesters were escorted out after moving to the front of the room and obstructing the podium with signs reading, “Massey Energy - Not Clean, Safe, Or Forever.”
Blankenship has made frequent appearances on national headlines after an April explosion at a Massey mine in Montcoal, West Virginia that killed 29 workers.
“I’m a realist. The politicians will tell you we’re going to do something so this never happens again,” said Blankenship. “You won’t hear me say that because I believe the physics of natural law and God trump whatever man tries to do.”
Blankenship said that the NFDL incident rate, a metric of lost-time accidents for mining, does not reach the top 12 most dangerous jobs.
“It’s more dangerous to drive a cab in New York or work at a 7-Eleven,” said Blankenship.
When asked about the Miner Safety and Health Act that passed in the House on July 21, Blankenship was quick in calling it a “knee-jerk” reaction by the government.
“We believe that the ventilation systems being dictated on us by the government are less safe,” said Blankenship. “We believe the air that has been used in the mining process needs to be taken outside the mine as quick as possible, but MSHA often disagrees with that.”
Blankenship wants to see independent pragmatic and scientific laws of safety put into place, rather than make laws that appear to do that in the publics eye.