The Best Judge $3 Million Can Buy

The US Supreme Court ruling earlier this week gives a scary look at how justice in America is routinely bought and sold.

The case -- Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal - began when Don Blankenship, chairman and CEO of Massey, lost a $76 million verdict in a fraud lawsuit brought by smaller rival, Hugh Caperton, in West Virginia. Caperton was driven out of business by Massey.

Coal Baron Blankenship is not a man who likes to lose. He is a Huey Long type character who looms large over the political landscape of West Virginia. He looked at the members of the state Supreme Court and decided he didn't like some of them.

Why not buy a new judge?

Blankenship had the audacity to target Judge Warren McGraw, who he thought was anti-business and would rule against him. Blankenship spent $3 million in odious, nasty attack ads destroying the liberal Judge, and getting his man, an unknown Brent Benjamin, elected in 2004.

The money did the job.

Caperton asked Judge Benjamin to recuse himself three times, because he obviously could not be impartial toward Blankenship, who had literally bought him his court seat. Benjamin refused each time saying he could absolutely be impartial.

Three years later, Benjamin, predictably cast a critical vote in a 3-2 decision that sided with Blankenship and threw out the $76 million verdict.

Spending $3 million to save $76 million sounds like an effective use of corporate funds for Massey Coal.

But Blankenship was not just counting on Benjamin's vote. Over the years, he also got very chummy with the Chief Justice Elliott Maynard and was photographed vacationing and sipping champaign in Monaco with Maynard and two female companions. No one is sure who paid for the expensive vacations.

Chief Justice Maynard insisted that his friendship and vacation with Blankenship would not affect his impartiality on the court when it came to deciding the $76 million suit.

But when the Monaco beach photos were published in the West Virginia papers, Chief Judge Maynard eventually, reluctantly, stepped down from the case and said "I have no doubt in my mind and firmly believe I have been and would be fair and impartial .."

All this was too much for the US Supreme Court, which ruled in a 5-4 decision that Benjamin should have disqualified himself in this extraordinary situation because an interested party's spending had a "disproportionate influence" in a pending case.

With such an obvious principal at stake --- that justice should not be for sale --- it's a wonder that the Supreme Court's decision was not unanimous. Do the four dissenting judges -- Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito -- really support this "legal" and obvious form of bribery? They argued that spending money is a form of free speech and should not be prohibited? Does that apply to giving a judge a wad of cash under the table?

Unfortunately, justice continues to be for sale in 39 states across the nation that elect judges. And more and more wealthy special interest groups and corporations are trying to buy the judges in this "legal" manner.

The prevailing culture was dramatically portrayed in John Grisham's 2008 bestseller The Appeal. A multinational corporate tycoon manages to unseat an anti-business judge, with his handpicked candidate, so the Mississippi Supreme Court can overturn a $41 million dollar toxic waste judgment against his chemical company.

It's amazing how closely the recently West Virginia case parallels this gripping novel.

When Grisham was asked by Matt Lauer on the Today Show, "Was there a specific story that caught your eye in the headlines that made you want to write this?"

"There have been several," Grisham said. "In judicial elections ... huge sums of money get involved on both sides to purchase a seat on the Supreme Court."

When Lauer asked Grisham if the plot was "far-fetched," Grisham replied, "It's already happened. It happened a few years ago in West Virginia.

"A guy owned a coal company. He got tired of getting sued. He elected his guy to the Supreme Court. It switched ... back his way. Now he doesn't worry about getting sued."

Video of the Today Show interview (click photo to see the entire interview):

Michael Shnayerson did an outstanding Vanity Fair 2006 article about Blankenship and his bullying tactics in West Virginia.

The cost of judicial campaigns is skyrocketing. As elections have grown increasingly nasty, judges have been forced to raise money like politicians, creating the perception --- and often the reality --- that justice is for sale. The real scandal isn't people doing what's illegal, it's that what they are doing is perfectly legal.

Spending in elections for state high courts has reached $200 million, according to Justice At Stake, and most of this money comes from powerful, rich corporations and special interest groups who feel they can buy and control high courts with impunity by electing their own judges with an orgy of negative ads against jurists who might disagree with them.

Blankenship has suffered a temporary setback. The case will go back to the West Virginia high court and he still might prevail, but most certainly the buying of judges will continue.

Email Blake Fleetwood at [e-mail].

Comments

[MountainJustice]

On April 3 2008, ABC reporter Brian Ross reported on Nightline that CEO Blankenship assaulted and threatened ("if you're going to take pictures, you're liable to get shot") an ABC News cameraman who asked Blankenship about his vacation with Judge Spike Maynard. You can see pictures here:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4582452&page=1

Coal Boss: If You Take Photos, 'You're Liable to Get Shot'
Don Blankenship Grabbed an ABC News Reporter's Camera During the Incident
By BRIAN ROSS and MADDY SAUER
April 3, 2008

[bigfated]

Clearly the RightWingers on the High court......just like the RightWingers in Congress....believe that justice is reserved for those who can pay the most. It is sadly true that greed has no bounds!

[elcabrero]

As a native West Virginian savoring this court decision, I do feel obligated to say that comparing Long wtih Blankenship does a great disservice to the former.

[mightyhead]

Politics, and apparently justice, is merely the shadow cast by Big Business.

[Unsui]

The USSC split 5/4 on this decision: really?! Holy F'n Hell, have Scalia and the rest no shame?

[SammyD]

Americans are delusional about living in a free country. Justice in America is equal to your pocketbook. It has always been this way and will continue. There are millions and millions of examples. Americans only believe what they are brainwashed to believe by the biased media on their idiot boxes or handhelds. Anyone who has been through the "justice system" in this country knows this fact.

[Boyaca]

The USA needs the French Solution. You know, the Guillotine. Then begin again. Every once in a while it is good to clean the garden of weeds. In the case of the USA the weeds have taken over the garden completely.

[chriss0114]

this is the "conservative" way--they call it "free speech"

if monetary contributions are free speech, why does it cost so much and why can I not afford "free speech"

[scooperss]

blankenship helped another of his friends in 2006 with an attempt to unseat Senator Byrd.

[flatus]

i'm going to start saving up for a traffic court judge.

[Cool-headed]

Kudos to Mr. Fleetwood. I am utterly amazed by this article. It should be widely forwarded and republshed. How can Americans accuse any other country of being a "banana republic"?

[realpolitic]

The right pretends that conservative candidates do not legislate from the bench. They do completely and unashameably. One always knows how Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito will vote. They always side with the established power relationships of society over an underdog, even with a clear conflict in play like the article describes. They men are ideologues and have been groomed as such since they joined the conservative Federalist society in law school. Their idea of an equalitarian America with no barriers to entry placed on someone of color, where corporations are always right, and the Executive branch never errs is a very foreign place to me.

[Hank007]

Scalia went fishing with Cheney, before ruling on a case in Halliburton's favor. I guess we know who bought him.

[FearlessFreep]

Impeach Scalia!

[continentalshelf]

de-bar him too

[NilesCrane]

I wish scalia would just drown in a small pool of cranberry juice cocktail and vodka...that man is so terrible, him and thomas need to be shipped off to iraq, let them serve their country there.

Im still so pissed off about the last 8 years, its going to take me alot of time and money to recover....i should sue george bush and cheney for abandonment, emotional distress and disillusion of leadership.

[dmyron]

Went fishing with Scalia-good call! You do not fish with guns......

[publius 01]

Washington State has many corrupt judges. Simply looking back at who funded their prior campaigns and then arguing about whether recusal is warranted won’t come close to solving the problem though.

Governments never contribute directly to judicial candidates’ campaigns (governments can’t spend public money that way). However, they’re the entities judges most likely will abuse their authority to favor. Here’s an example:

http://www.freewebs.com/gogop1/ .

There the justices repeatedly lied about the claims taxpayers were raising. The illegal taxes were popular with their friends. Deep-pocket entities waved both a carrot and a stick in the justices’ faces --

The Carrot: We will fill your campaign coffers with tons of PAC money when you seek re-election if you abuse your authority for us in this case.

The Stick: We will fill the campaign coffers of your opponent unless you lie and give us the win in this matter.

A recusal policy based just on past campaign contributions wouldn’t have taken away either that carrot or that stick from the parties waving them. Those deep pockets weren’t before the court. Instead, the respondents were their sugar-daddies - the two local governments and the state government (none of whom contributed directly to any judicial campaigns).

[denlong]

OK time to give up the silly idea that SCOTUS is apolitical.

Actually Bush v Gore showed us the truth!

[FoonTheElder]

"Do the four dissenting judges -- Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito -- really support this "legal" and obvious form of bribery? They argued that spending money is a form of free speech and should not be prohibited? Does that apply to giving a judge a wad of cash under the table?"

Yes they do. This is the same rationale that they use to prevent limits on campaign spending by politicians. The more property (money) that you have, the more free speech you are entitled to. This is exactly why the big corporations and wealthy own Congress. They paid for it, now they want their return on investment.