Massey Energy has attracted its own share of public officials in support of its position in the pending U.S. Supreme Court appeal brought by Harman Mining, The Associated Press reports.
A group of 10 current and former justices, the attorney general's offices of seven states, a pair of law professors and the James Madison Center for Free Speech have filed "friend of the court" briefs on Massey's behalf.
Harman and its president argue that state Supreme Court Chief Justice Brent Benjamin should have recused himself before twice voting to overturn the $50 million verdict they had won against Massey. The petitioners cite the more than $3 million that Massey CEO Don Blankenship spent to help Benjamin get elected.
Wednesday's amici briefs argue otherwise. The American Bar Association and the Brennan Center of Justice each offer links to those briefs. The Charleston Gazette also has an item.
Harman's side attracted 10 briefs from 47 different entities (including the ABA, the Brennan Center, and a group of 27 former justices) supporting its argument, while Benjamin's peers on the Conference of Chief Justices raised a question about his presence on the Massey case without taking sides. The above sites offer those earlier briefs as well.
05 February 2009
Massey Gains Allies in U.S. Supreme Court Fight
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
It's nice to see a voice of reason regarding the forcing of elected officials to recuse themselves on all isssues relating to those contributing to their campaign. It's terribly unfortunate that coverage of this is so tilted to the "populist" (liberal) viewpoint.
There is nothing "liberal" or "conservative" about the issue the Supreme Court is being asked to address.
"Liberals" and "Conservatives both benefit from campaign donations or independent expenditures to aid their campaigns or harm their opponets. "Liberals" and "conservatives" also both use money to influence the outcome of elections.
Just because Benjamin happens to be a "conservative" and his benefactor is also, doesn't mean the issue of when a failure of a judge or justice whose impartiality can be doubted to recuse himself from a case violates federal constitutional guarantees which apply to the states.
The actual issue could have arisen when say a "liberal" justice refused to step aside in a case involving a "liberal" special interest group which spent several times the combined amount both candidates committees and all other groups spent in a particular election.
Any rules which result from a decision in Caperton will apply equally to judges of justices of any political persuasion.
Post a Comment