When must judge recuse self? SCOTUS to decide

March 2, 2009

The Washington Post reports on a Supreme Court case that could have a tremendous impact on courts across the country:

Hugh Caperton was born into the coal business, but for more than a decade he has spent more time in a courthouse than in a mine. The complex, intrigue-filled legal tale he will present to the Supreme Court this week was literally enough to spawn a suspense novel, but it boils down to this:

Caperton and his little coal company sued a huge coal company on claims that it unlawfully drove him out of business, and a jury agreed, awarding him $50 million.

That company’s chief executive vowed an appeal to the West Virginia Supreme Court — but first, he spent an unprecedented $3 million to persuade voters to get rid of a justice he didn’t like and elect one he did.

That justice provided the decisive vote in overturning Caperton’s multimillion-dollar award.

And the case raises profound questions about the way Americans elect their judges, the duty of judges to recuse themselves when the people who bankrolled their campaigns come before them and, even, the very meaning of judicial impartiality.

The facts are so compelling that John Grisham used them as a basis for his bestseller “The Appeal.” On opposing sides during oral arguments Tuesday will be two of the court’s most prolific and persuasive practitioners, former solicitor general Theodore B. Olson and Andrew L. Frey.

But the implications go far beyond West Virginia, energizing critics of the multimillion-dollar political campaigns that are now the norm in many of the 39 states that elect judges, where no-holds-barred television advertising has replaced the staid and polite debates of the past. Among the outpouring of supporters for Caperton are a number of unlikely compatriots — Wal-Mart siding with the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, for instance.

Leave a Comment » | U.S. Supreme Court | Permalink
Posted by Policy in Practice

Ginsburg Diagnosed with Cancer

February 5, 2009

ABC news is reporting:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had surgery Thursday after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, the court said.

Ginsburg, 75, had the surgery at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. She will remain in the hospital for seven to 10 days, said her surgeon, Dr. Murray Brennan, according to a release issued by the court.

The court announcement said the cancer is apparently in the early stages.

In 1999, Ginsburg had surgery for colon cancer and had chemotherapy and radiation treatment. The only woman on the court, she has been a justice since 1993.

The pancreatic cancer was discovered during a routine, annual exam late last month at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md.

A CAT scan revealed a tumor measuring about 1 centimeter across the center of the pancreas, the court said.

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most deadly cancers: Nearly 38,000 cases a year are diagnosed and overall, fewer than 5 percent survive five years.

The reason: Fewer than one in 10 cases are diagnosed at an early stage — like Ginsburg’s appears to be — before the cancer has begun spreading through the abdomen and beyond. That’s because early pancreatic cancer produces few symptoms other than vague indigestion.

Even when caught early, surgery for pancreatic cancer is arduous. Doctors typically remove parts of the pancreas, stomach and intestines. Radiation and chemotherapy are common after surgery.

Ginsburg has recently told her former law clerks and others that she envisioned serving on the court into her 80s, although those comments were made before the latest diagnosis.

Ginsburg is one of only two female justices ever. The other is Sandra Day O’Connor, who retired in 2006.

In her previous bout with cancer, Ginsburg received treatment throughout the court’s term and never missed a day on the bench.

The justices, in the midst of a winter break, hold their next private conference on Feb. 20 and return to the bench on Feb. 23.

The court’s announcement offered few details about the surgery. Brennan is a renowned surgeon whose expertise is treatment of pancreatic cancers and tumors on other soft tissues, like the adrenal and thyroid glands. He was chair of Memorial Sloan-Kettering’s surgery department from 1985 until June 2006.

Leave a Comment » | Judiciary, U.S. Supreme Court | Permalink
Posted by Policy in Practice

SCOTUS to decide Voting Rights case

January 9, 2009

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case on a central provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act in the wake of 40 years of time and different legal circumstances.

The Court will decide whether or not certain states must continue seeking out preclearance from the Justice Department or a federal court to changes in voting rights law.

The case will be decided in June.

Leave a Comment » | U.S. Supreme Court | Permalink
Posted by Policy in Practice

GOP appointees dominating appellate courts

December 8, 2008

The Washington Post, concentrating on the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, reports on the success of GOP appointments in controlling the direction of U.S. Appellate Courts.

Although the impact of Bush’s judicial appointments is most often noticed at the Supreme Court, it has played out much more frequently and more importantly here and in the nation’s 12 other appellate courts, where his appointees and their liberal counterparts are waging often-bitter ideological battles. After Bush’s eight years in office, Republican-appointed majorities firmly control the outcomes in 10 of these courts, compared with seven after President Bill Clinton’s tenure. They also now share equal representation with Democratic appointees on two additional courts.

Although exceptions exist, of course, independent legal scholars say Bush’s picks in particular have been more likely than Democratic appointees to uphold the positions of police and prosecutors, and less likely to alter verdicts because of procedural and legal mistakes in handling defendants.

Leave a Comment » | Appellate Courts, Presidential Politics | Permalink
Posted by Policy in Practice

Court: Don’t count the votes

December 5, 2008

The Ohio Supreme Court, comprised entirely of Republicans, ruled to throw out 1,000 provisional ballots in the hotly-contested race between Steve Stivers and Mary Jo Kilroy in the last U.S. Congressional election to be decided in 2008. The ruling is a boon to Stivers’ campaign, whose slight lead over Kilroy grows increasingly tenuous with every vote counted, as the remaining 26,000 provisional ballots to be counted are predominantly from Franklin County, where voters favored Kilroy.

The Dispatch reports further:

Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer and Justices Terrence O’Donnell, Evelyn Lundberg Stratton and Robert R. Cupp sided with the Stivers camp in ordering the ballots not to be counted. Justices Paul E. Pfeifer and Judith Ann Lanzinger partially concurred, while Justice Maureen O’Connor did not participate in the ruling.

Today’s Ohio Supreme Court ruling kicks off the final phase of an election that began more than 13 months ago when Stivers entered the race against Kilroy, who had run for the seat and narrowly lost to Rep. Deborah Pryce in 2006.

The Franklin County Board of Elections expects to be able to count the provisional ballots in two to three days, then set a meeting of the board to certify the results.

If neither candidate is ahead by more than 0.5 percent — roughly 1,600 votes — there would be a mandatory recount of ballots.

That process could take another two weeks: six to 10 days to start the process, and five to seven days to complete it.

That means the winner may not be known until almost Christmas.

Leave a Comment » | Ohio Supreme Court, Statewide Politics | Permalink
Posted by Policy in Practice

Cupp: State Supreme Court is not partisan

December 5, 2008

While speaking to the arch-conservative Federalist Society Thursday, Judge Robert Cupp said that the court upon which he sits–the Ohio Supreme Court–is nonpartisan. Comprised entirely of Republicans, Cupp–a long-time state legislator and lifelong Republican–and his fellow justices are expected to rule upon whether or not 1,000 votes may be counted in the race between Republican Steve Stivers and Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy in the U.S. House race for the 15th District.

Leave a Comment » | Ohio Supreme Court | Permalink
Posted by Policy in Practice

Judge to rule on counting of ballots

November 18, 2008

Federal District Court Judge Algenon Marbley, an appointee of Bill Clinton, announced yesterday that a ruling on a lawsuit filed on behalf of Republican Steve Stivers belongs in his court, rather than in the State Supreme Court. As such, a decision on whether or not provisional ballots may continue to be counted will fall to Marbley.

Leave a Comment » | Federal Court, U.S. Congress | Permalink
Posted by Policy in Practice