Supreme Court justices considering new judge standards

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court justices expressed concern Tuesday about people's confidence in the impartiality of elected state judges and suggested they might set a new standard for when judges should take themselves out of cases that involve big financial supporters.

"The system … is not working well," Justice David Souter said, referring to the dramatic rise in campaign contributions for state elections and public concern about whether money is tainting judges' rulings in some cases.

The dispute heard centers on a coal company CEO who contributed $3 million to help elect a West Virginia supreme court justice. That justice later cast a crucial vote that overturned a $50 million jury verdict in a fraud lawsuit against the coal company.

Tuesday's oral arguments drew a packed courtroom. Among those in the white marble setting was retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who often speaks publicly about judicial independence and has used the West Virginia case as an example of possible bias.

The amount of money Massey Coal CEO Don Blankenship spent on the 2004 judicial race, 60% of all contributions, and the fact that Massey's case against coal company rival Hugh Caperton was pending at the time, plainly captured the justices' attention.

Many seemed skeptical of the decision by the newly elected judge, Brent Benjamin, not to take himself out of the case as Caperton sought.

Justice John Paul Stevens termed the situation "extreme" and at one point suggested "obviously improper."

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is typically the deciding vote when the court is ideologically split, as it appeared Tuesday, suggested by his questions that he was open to some new, yet limiting, standard for when judges might have to disqualify themselves.

Kennedy observed at one point that litigants have a right to believe their judges are impartial.

The key question for the justices in the long-simmering West Virginia dispute is whether a judge's failure to disqualify himself from a case involving his principal financial supporter violates constitutional due process of law.