When should a judge recuse himself from hearing a case

[brian0918]

The Supreme Court today hears testimony related to two competing coal companies. A smaller company refused to sell its business to a larger one. The larger one tried to drive it out of business by buying all the surrounding property and refusing to let the smaller one access their property. The small company sued for damages and won. The large company planned to appeal, but first spent millions on electing a judge that they believed would give them a favorable result. The judge was elected, with the larger company providing ~60% of his campaign funds. The larger company then appealed to the state supreme court, where the new judge cast the deciding vote in favor of the large company. Now the smaller company is saying they couldn't have gotten a fair trial, because the judge refused to recuse himself.

So what's the verdict? On the one hand, I can see that judges should recuse themselves in certain cases. On the other hand, this judge was freely elected, and I think any move to implement restrictions on what cases they can hear is simply taking away responsibility from the voter.

Edited March 3, 2009 by brian0918

[Jake_Ellison]

It's unclear what you mean by taking responsibility away from the voter.

Anyway, here's what happened in court.(no decision yet, just hearings) Interestingly enough, Scalia had way better arguments (in favor of letting the ruling stand), but I think that's because his oposition are plain idiots.

[DavidOdden]

You can get the hardcore facts here..

[fountainhead777]

I have not read too much on the case but to answer the original question I would say that a judge should recuse himself when it may be difficult for him to remain objective. Now what determines objectivity is questionable but I would say around 60% of his campaign funding might hinder his objectivity on a case relating to that company. Companies should be able to spend their money how they see fit but contributing to public officials campaigns does not seem very ethical. To me it seems as if the company is using force, with government as back up to ensure their market when they should be focusing on improving their products to maintain their market share.

Also with voters in their current state of apathy they are easily swayed in smaller elections to choose the most recognized name. That campaign funding coudl do a lot for that. Shame we do not have a rational society yet.