Judicial Impartiality
Two days back Supreme Court delivered a precedent setting judgment on judicial conduct. The case Caperton vs A T Massey Coal Company was about "Whether the Chief Justice of West Virginia Supreme Court should have recused himself in a case involving a corporation that spent $ 3 Million on his election.? The decision on a 5 to 4 split was yes, I was surprised by the slim margin. I thought the issue of judicial fairness is something black and white with no shade of Grey.
It is a basic principle of justice that "justice is done and justice is seen to be done", when a judge who has drawn heavy campaign contributions from a litigant, I think this basic rule is violated.
In my opinion the members of the minority should have recused themselves from this case because they don't believe in recusal or go back on their words about recusal. Justice Scalia refused to recuse from cases involving Dick Cheney despite going on hunting trips with him, nobody expects a person to be impartial towards a hunting buddy. Justice Alito didn't recuse himself from cases involving Vangaurd despite giving assurances that he will not judge cases involving Vanguard during his confirmation hearing as noted in this NPR report
The main argument of the minority is that it will open a lot of recusal claims , I think judges are uniquely qualified to work thru this and avoid these claims. Their actions should prove justice is blind and not selectively blind.
PS: After the Supreme Court judgment the Supreme Court of Ohio delivered a judgment that favored the police and firefighters in relaxing the residency requirements. All the Justices in the majority were endorsed by police and firefighters in their elections.
Comments