Posted on 03/03/2009 4:41:36 AM PST by Zakeet
The ultimate stakes could not be higher in a Supreme Court case argued today
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., which will be argued before the Supreme Court today, is one of the most important cases this term. Unfortunately, much of the press coverage of this dispute is superficial and misleading -- and as a result, the public is unaware of the momentous First Amendment issues at stake.
The case has its roots in a complicated tale of political and corporate intrigue between two coal companies, leading eventually to a jury verdict of $50 million in favor of Hugh Caperton, owner of Harman Mining Co., against Massey Coal Co. for fraud and breach of contract. As Massey's appeal worked its way through the West Virginia court system, Massey CEO Don Blankenship spent $3 million of his personal funds in 2004 on hard-hitting advertisements attacking incumbent state Supreme Court Justice Warren McGraw, who was seeking re-election.
Mr. McGraw's opponent, Brent Benjamin, won that election and later joined the 3-to-2 majority that threw out the verdict against Massey. The argument before the Supreme Court is that Justice Benjamin should have recused himself from the case because of Mr. Blankenship's campaign expenditures.
National media coverage has framed the issue as one of defining a standard for recusal due to contributions to judicial campaigns -- but it has muddied a crucial distinction between independent spending and direct campaign contributions. ...
Instead, most stories portray Mr. Blankenship as having in effect "bought" a justice in order to win a favorable outcome in his case. But Mr. Blankenship did not contribute $3 million to Mr. Benjamin's campaign; he spent the money on his own. Mr. Benjamin did not request Mr. Blankenship's aid, discuss the spending with him, agree to anything ...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Should this man be allowed to spend his own money to help throw out a politician he doesn't like?
Free speech is soooo 9/10.
Not unless We the People let them.
Or should that be We the Sheeple?
Sure. Why not? Obviously the old Constitution is out the window. They regulate all kind of things unconstitutionally. Why not speech?
“But Mr. Blankenship did not contribute $3 million to Mr. Benjamin’s campaign; he spent the money on his own. Mr. Benjamin did not request Mr. Blankenship’s aid, discuss the spending with him, agree to anything ...”
He helped the Justice who favored him get elected. It’s doesn’t matter how. Because of that, the Justice most certainly should have recused himself.
I always thought that breathing the air was free. Now it turns out that exhaling will be restricted/regulated/taxed. It's unbelievable.
We are going to have to fight. I think.
No, read the story. He helped the justice who didn't favor him get unelected. Big difference.
Remember CFR? Darn straight Congress can regulate all “political speech.”
Didn’t ya know, the First Amendment is about protecting porn!
There is no free speech in communism.
What's nine tenths have to do with free speech??? :)
Secondly, the legal standard here is very simple. Judges should recuse themselves whenever there is ANY APPEARANCE of impropriety.
Massey was obviously trying to buy a judge. Whether or not they did is not the issue that should drive the recusal.
The simply fact that some reasonable people could infer that the new judge would not be impartial is clearly enough to have caused the justice to remove himself from the case early on.
This is NOT a political speech issue... and no party to a case has to right to get a certain judge.
Why not?? George Soros did the same thing in the POTUS election. Rich guys been doing exactly that for years or hasn't anyone ever heard of the Kennedys?
(Recall, private property is gone and of course the 2nd amendment is now somehow tied to “sporting purposes.”)
I agree the post is misleading. It neglects to mention the relationship between Hugh Caperton and the former governor of West Virginia. If you don't think the Dem Judges didn't have a conflict of interest here, you're dreaming.
I have met and campaigned with Brent Benjamin. The man is a straight arrow if there ever was one. He has enough integrity to recuse himself if he can't be impartial.
I have also met Don Blankenship, and he is a hero. He has stood alone against the Trial Lawyers and Labor Unions in this state. He not only tried to get Republicans elected to the State Supreme Court, he contributed to virtually every Republican running for the state legislature. I'd like to think that if I had Don Blankenship's money that I'd support conservative Republicans for every office in the state to the maximum allowed.
This Congress is not a threat to our Constitution. This Congress is a clear and present danger to our Constitution
I prefer Them the Sheeple. They can try, but we cannot let them. We have an ace in the hole. There’s this thing called the Constitution, see, and...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.