Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Impeach Brent Benjamin Now!? Giving Adequate Attention To Failings Of Judicial Impartiality, Jeffrey W. Stempel
Impeach Brent Benjamin Now!? Giving Adequate Attention To Failings Of Judicial Impartiality, Jeffrey W. Stempel
Jeffrey W Stempel
In Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 129 S. Ct. 2252 (2009), the Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote vacated and remanded a decision of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in which Justice Brent Benjamin cast the deciding vote in favor of Massey, a company run by Don Blankenship, who had provided $3 million in support to Benjamin during his 2004 election campaign.
Despite the unsavory taste of the entire episode, the Court was excessively careful not to criticize Justice Benjamin. Overlooked because of this undue judicial civility and controversy about the constitutional aspects of the decision …
Completing Caperton And Clarifying Common Sense Through Using The Right Standard For Constitutional Judicial Recusal, Jeffrey W. Stempel
Completing Caperton And Clarifying Common Sense Through Using The Right Standard For Constitutional Judicial Recusal, Jeffrey W. Stempel
Jeffrey W Stempel
In Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a state supreme court decision in which a justice who had received $3 million in campaign support from a company CEO cast the deciding vote to relieve the company of a $50 million liability. The Caperton majority adopted a “probability of bias” standard for constitutional due process review of judicial disqualification decisions that differs from the ordinary “reasonable question as to impartiality” standard for recusal. Four dissenters objected to the majority’s limited supervision of state court disqualification practice, minimized the danger of biased judging presented by the …
Chief William's Ghost: The Problematic Persistance Of The Duty To Sit, Jeffrey W. Stempel
Chief William's Ghost: The Problematic Persistance Of The Duty To Sit, Jeffrey W. Stempel
Jeffrey W Stempel
In 1974, the duty to sit -- a doctrine positing that judges should recuse themselves only if the case for disqualification was compelling -- was abolished in federal courts. Then-Justice William Rehnquist's refusal to disqualify himself in Laird v. Tatum (1972) was a partial catalyst in this legal reform, which was consistent with the ABA position on the duty to sit, at least in what I term it's "pernicious" form. Notwithstanding the official abolition of the doctrine, it continues to be invoked, as does the problematic Rehnquist opinion defending his indefensible refusal to recuse in Laird v. Taturm. This article …