... and Justice for All

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore Suspended from Office

Roy Moore, the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, was suspended from office without pay by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary for, well, for refusing to follow the law of the land and for ordering lower court judges in Alabama to violate and/or ignore the law. The whole thing has to do with the Supreme Court's ruling last year regarding same-sex marriage; Moore opposes same-sex marriage, and he ordered lower court judges in Alabama, whose duties include issuing marriage licenses, not to follow the Supreme Court ruling and issue the licenses. The Atlantic reports: Roy Moore's "Suspension from Office."

Judge Moore is a crusader and a true believer: in 2003 he was ousted from the Chief Justice office for refusing to follow a federal court's ruling to remove a giant rock with the Ten Commandments on it from the state's supreme court building. 

There's different ways to look at this.  One is that judges have to follow higher court rulings or apply statutes all the time that they disagree with or which they see cause unjust even morally repugnant results. That is known going in as part of the job, I would guess.  The legal system can't tolerate renegade judges, because it would devolve into a system of men rather than laws. Frankly, there's already enough problems like this. Actions like Judge Moore's just encourage judges to think they are entitled to have an agenda, which leads some off the reservation, so to speak.

Another way is to respect even admire Judge Moore's willingness to stand up for what he believes in, and to pay a price for doing so.

A third way is to recognize that Judge Moore will likely use this second ousting from office as a springboard to once again run for elected office. Following his removal as Alabama Chief Justice in 2003 Judge Moore ran twice unsuccessfully for Governor of Alabama. Perhaps he figures the third time's the charm. 

And so it goes.

Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com

Related articles

Change law, say GOP members on marriage-case fight

Alabama Justice Roy Moore to Face Ethics Trial on September 28

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore Will Stand Trial For Defying Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

Alabama Republican Party Calls for Changes to Law in Light of Roy Moore's Suspension From Bench

What if there were only eight justices on the Supreme Court, indefinitely?

New York top court expands definition of 'parent'

Roy Moore: Decision whether to remove Alabama chief justice could come in days | AL.com

Should Judges Be Able to Personally Solicit Campaign Contributions?

Before the Supreme Court is a case asking whether judges running for election (or candidates running for election as judges) should be able to personally solicit campaign contributions. The case is Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar and involves a fundraising letter signed by a candidate for a state court judgeship in Hillsborough County, Florida. 

The Court appeared to be having trouble with the reality that campaigns are an actual, real feature of judicial races in those 39 states including Kentucky that have some form of judicial election, appearing to believe that judicial power is special, which means that they think they are special and above reproach.

There are good reports by Adam Liptak for the New York Times, A Judicial Fund-Raising Case Causes Justices to Reflect On Their Own Jobs, and by Amy Howe for SCOTUSblog, Justices Debate Limits on Solicitations By Judges. 

Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com

 

Related articles

SCOTUS hears case on financing of judicial campaigns

Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage

U.S. Supreme Court to rule on judicial campaign contributions

LegalEyes for January 13, 2015

The First Amendment and campaign solicitations: In Plain English

Should Judicial Candidates Be Allowed To Solicit Campaign Money?

Supreme Court appears split on judges soliciting campaign money

US Supreme Court mulls judicial campaign contributions

Kathy Stein for Fayette Family Court Judge

Kathy Stein has served our community in many ways and now, I must say, for many years. I first met her when she was a prosecutor in the County Attorney's office, and, of course, she later served as a state House representative, then as a state Senator before Governor Beshear wisely appointed her to the Fayette Family Court. She's up for re-election and deserves your vote, the following is one reason why:

 

Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com

Circuit Judge Russell Alred Removed From Office By Kentucky Supreme Court

The Kentucky Supreme Court removed Circuit Judge Russell Allred from office for judicial misconduct by a ruling released last week: Alred v. Judicial Conduct Commission, No. 2011-SC-558. The Court's opinion written by Chief Justice John Minton concluded as follows: 

... it is clear that Judge Alred engaged in a pattern of misconduct, displaying disregard for the law and the Kentucky Code of Judicial Conduct.

Justices Bill Cunningham and Will T. Scott dissented and argued that Judge Alred should stay on the bench as a judge.

Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com

 

Supreme Court Rules On How Much Justice Can Be Bought

How much justice can be bought? This question arises from judicial campaign contributions and the escalating expenses of state judicial campaigns and the Supreme Court answered it Monday in Caperton v. Massey Energy.  The answer is when it is just too much and "extraordinary."

 

The story began in August 2002 with a $50 million jury verdict for Caperton against Massey Coal, which was found to have engaged in fraudulent misrepresentations, concealment and tortiously interfered with Caperton’s business relationships. The trial court ruled that Massey Coal acted with “utter disregard” for Caperton’s rights and succeded in destroying its businesses. 

 With an eye on the appeal, Don Blankenship, Massey’s chairman, decided to get him elected a Justice to the West Virginia Supreme Court. Blankenship donated or spent more than $3 million for his preferred candidate, a previously obscure lawyer Brent Benjamin. Blankenship’s $3 million was more than the total amount spent by all other Benjamin supporters put together and three times the amount spent by Benjamin’s own election committee; it was more than $1 million more than the total amount spent by both candidates’ committees.  Money talks and Benjamin won a seat on the West Virginia Supreme Court. After Massey appealed, Benjamin twice refused to recuse himself and voted in Massey’s favor to vacate the jury verdict.  The Supreme Court decided to review Benjamin's refusal to recuse himself.

The Supreme Court ruled that it was just too much money, that the appearance of  justice being for sale was just too strong.  The basic inquiry, the Court explained," centers on the contribution’s relative size in comparison to the total amount of money contributed to the campaign, the total amount spent in the election, and the apparent effect such contribution had on the outcome of the election."  And Blankenship's $3 million was just too much, the Court explained:

we conclude that Blankenship’scampaign efforts had a significant and disproportionateinfluence in placing Justice Benjamin on the case.Blankenship contributed some $3 million to unseat the incumbent and replace him with Benjamin. His contributions eclipsed the total amount spent by all other Benjamin supporters and exceeded by 300% the amount spent by Benjamin’s campaign committee.


The problem, the Court emphasized, is that it looked like Massey and Blankenship had gotten all the justice that money could buy:

Although there is no allegation of a quid pro quo agreement, the fact remainsthat Blankenship’s extraordinary contributions were made at a time when he had a vested stake in the outcome. Just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, similar fears of bias can arise when—without the consent of the other parties—a man chooses the judge in his own cause. And applying this principle to the judicial electionprocess, there was here a serious, objective risk of actual bias that required Justice Benjamin’s recusal.

Money talks for sure and they say it swears too.  When it swears too loud, it violates, according to the Supreme Court, basis principles of due process.  This was, the Court said, "an extraordinary situation."


Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com

Justice For Sale? Supreme Court To Decide West Virginia Judicial Campaign Contribution Case

The United States Supreme Court indicated Friday that it will decide a case that comes close to the very fundamental question of whether justice and a court can be bought.  The case, Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Company, Inc., according to the petition for writ of certiorari filed the losing party in the West Virginia Supreme Court, presents the following question:

Justice Brent Benjamin of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia refused to recuse himself from the appeal of the $50 million jury verdict in this case, even though the CEO of the lead defendant spent $3 million supporting his campaign for a seat on the court -- more than 60% of the total amount spent to support Justice Benjamin's campaign -- while preparing to appeal the verdict against his company.  After winning election to the court, Justice Benjamin cast the deciding vote in the court's 3-2 decision overturning that verdict.  The question presented is whether Justice Benjamin's failure to recuse himself from participation in his principal financial supporter's case violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (The petition for certiorari can be read here). 

The petition leans primarily on an "appearance of bias" argument, stopping short of accusing or alleging actual bias.  It recites prior pronouncements by the Court that "to perform its high function in the best way justice must satisfy the appearance of justice."  Basic components of fairness are implicated:  (1) a "fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process" and, (2) a "neutral and detached judge" is an essential component of this due process requirement." 

It does not appear that the Court will be asked to prohibit categorically campaign contributions by individuals in judicial elections, while noting that between 1999 and 2006 candidates seeking seats on state supreme courts raised more than $157 million.  The Court is urged to "clarify the circumstances in which due process requires the recusal of a judge who benefited from the campaign expenditures of a party or an attorney."  And so the Court is asked to draw the line at which point it may appear that justice has been bought. 

Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com

Scorsone for Fayette Circuit Judge

State Senator Ernesto Scorsone has announced his intent to seek the Fayette Circuit Judge seat recently vacated by the retirement of Judge Sheila Isaac.  His decision will apparently trigger a significant shuffling of the Fayette County legislative delegation, according to the Lexington Herald-Leader.  Sen. Scorsone has proved himself through a dozen years service in both the state House and Senate to be one of Kentucky's hardest-working and most thoughtful and conscientious public servants.  His addition to the Fayette Circuit bench promises to extend a distinguished career of public service.  Count this author among those urging Scorsone for Fayette Circuit Judge.

Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com