Recently, conservative SCOTUS justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas in addition to Chief Justice John Roberts dissented in the SCOTUS decision—Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc.—that determined a West Virginia judge should have recused himself, since “the Due Process Clause incorporated the common-law rule requiring recusal when a judge has ‘a direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest.’”

In this case, Chief Justice John Roberts “argued [in his dissent] that the ruling would damage public confidence in the judiciary,” since the “Court’s new ‘rule’ provides no guidance to judges and litigants about when recusal will be constitutionally required.”  However, the Court in this case asserted, “[T]he Court has identified additional instances which, as an objective matter, require recusal. These are circumstances ‘in which experience teaches that the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.’” The Court also provided this guidance: “The inquiry is an objective one. The Court asks not whether the judge is actually, subjectively biased, but whether the average judge in his position is ‘likely’ to be neutral, or whether there is an unconstitutional ‘potential for bias.’”

Chief Justice John Roberts also argued, “This will inevitably lead to an increase in allegations that judges are biased, however groundless those charges may be. The end result will do far more to erode public confidence in judicial impartiality than an isolated failure to recuse in a particular case.” Certainly, the courts can manage groundless charges, and I believe the dissenting conservatives justices in this case—including the Chief Justice—have done more to “erode public confidence in judicial impartiality,” especially since this case was about judicial impartiality. From Facing South:

After the Massey Energy coal mining company lost a $50 million verdict to a competitor, CEO Don Blankenship spent $3 million electing a friendly judge to West Virginia’s Supreme Court of Appeals who went on to cast the deciding vote in a case that overturned the verdict.

.       .       .

“At its core, the Caperton case was about the inherent conflict of interest when our elected officials depend on or are aided by large campaign contributions and excessive spending in the electoral process,” said Nick Nyhart, president of Public Campaign, a nonprofit that promotes public financing of elections. “Americans know that campaign contributions from wealthy special interests impact the policy decisions made by Congress on matters that affect the life and well being of all of us.”

Massey’s stock was down 6% in yesterday afternoon’s trading on the New York Stock Exchange, while other coal company stocks were down between 2 and 4%, Reuters reports.

The high court’s ruling is the latest in a series of recent setbacks for Richmond, Va.-based Massey. Last month Ohio State University President E. Gordon Gee resigned from Massey’s board under pressure from activists who argued that his promotion of sustainable energy was incompatible with Massey’s reliance on mountaintop removal mining.

And earlier this year, Santa Clara University in California divested its holdings in Massey because of the company’s record of environmental destructiveness. The company has also been the target of nonviolent protests over its environmentally destructive business practices.

White House photo by Paul Morse found here.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::