U.S. high court: Judges must avoid appearance of bias

"It is an old cliche, but sometimes the cure is worse than the disease,'' Roberts said. He wrote that it is not clear that Blankenship's money even affected the outcome of the election.

"I would give the voters of West Virginia more credit than that,'' he said.

ziggy wrote:"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,'' Justice Anthony Kennedy said for the court.

ziggy wrote:

"It is an old cliche, but sometimes the cure is worse than the disease,'' Roberts said. He wrote that it is not clear that Blankenship's money even affected the outcome of the election.

"I would give the voters of West Virginia more credit than that,'' he said.

???????????????????????????????????????????????

What an idiot this Roberts guy must be ....................................

The dissenters said the court's inability or unwillingness to lay out clear rules for when judges must step aside will provoke endless lawsuits aimed at forcing judges off cases.


"It is an old cliche, but sometimes the cure is worse than the disease,'' Roberts said. He wrote that it is not clear that Blankenship's money even affected the outcome of the election.


"I would give the voters of West Virginia more credit than that,'' he said.


Both Scalia and Roberts said that the ruling would end up undermining confidence in the judicial system, not enhancing it as the majority contended.same source

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:"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,'' Justice Anthony Kennedy said for the court.

Good. And I agree.

It's also nice to know that as a paid member of the WV Highlands Conservancy, Judge Robert Chambers will now be required by this decision to recuse himself from all cases filed by or involving that group, as it should be.

One doesn't get to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court unless he knows what he's talking about.

Tuesday June 9, 2009
West Virginians can't win for losing

Monday's ruling "will inevitably lead to an increase in allegations that judges are biased, however groundless those charges may be," he wrote.

Exactly. West Virginians who contribute to judicial campaigns - or who fund effective independent campaigns to change the makeup of the state Supreme Court - will establish grounds for the recusal of the candidates they support.

The resulting litigation will be endless. And expensive, too, creating a further disincentive for defendant corporations to risk their assets in West Virginia.

Poor West Virginians. The U.S. Supreme Court decided that if they spend enough to support an effective effort to affect their high court - how much money automatically creates bias could be litigated each time - anyone who is elected will be presumed guilty of bias if he or she hears cases.

West Virginians may support judicial candidates who can vastly affect their lives only if do so ineffectively.

Is that constitutional?

http://www.dailymail.com/Opinion/Editorials/200906080509

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:"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,'' Justice Anthony Kennedy said for the court.

Good. And I agree.

It's also nice to know that as a paid member of the WV Highlands Conservancy, Judge Robert Chambers will now be required by this decision to recuse himself from all cases filed by or involving that group, as it should be.

How much $$$$$ did the WV Highlands Conservancy put into a political campaign to elect Chambers and defeat his opponent?

ziggy wrote:

One doesn't get to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court unless he knows what he's talking about.

Do you feel the same way about Harlan Stone, Earl Warren, and Fred Vinson?

Stephanie wrote:I agree with this ruling. Perhaps Justice Roberts should have studied WV political history before offering his opinion.

I agree with this ruling. Perhaps Justice Roberts should have studied WV political history before offering his opinion.

The real solution is to stop electing Judges and instead have them appointed by a bi-partisan committee made up of individuals from many different segments of the community and political parties.

ziggy wrote:

The real solution is to stop electing Judges and instead have them appointed by a bi-partisan committee made up of individuals from many different segments of the community and political parties.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

The real solution is to stop electing Judges and instead have them appointed by a bi-partisan committee made up of individuals from many different segments of the community and political parties.

Lets see. The solution I put forth is not a violation of someones individual rights.

Yours is.

Aaron wrote:Not going into the recent PAC contributions overturned by the WVSC, they violate the First Amendment for those who understand it.

Are you one of those?

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:"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,'' Justice Anthony Kennedy said for the court.

Good. And I agree.

It's also nice to know that as a paid member of the WV Highlands Conservancy, Judge Robert Chambers will now be required by this decision to recuse himself from all cases filed by or involving that group, as it should be.