June 10, 2009
Blankenship questions Supreme Court's judicial ethics ruling
Advertiser

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- The chief executive of Massey Energy Co. questions whether the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in a judicial ethics case involving the Appalachian coal mining giant will stifle free speech.

The court ruled Monday that elected judges must step aside from cases when large campaign contributions from interested parties create the appearance of bias.

"I hope the Supreme Court's ruling will not silence others from speaking out when change is needed,'' Massey chief Don Blankenship said in a statement Wednesday.

The case involved more than $3 million spent by Blankenship to help elect Chief Justice Brent Benjamin to the West Virginia Supreme Court.

At the time, Massey was appealing a verdict, which now totals $82.7 million with interest, in a dispute with a rival coal company. Benjamin refused repeated requests to step aside from the case and was part of a 3-2 decision to overturn the verdict.

The coal company, Harman Mining Co., and its president, Hugh Caperton, appealed and high court overturned the verdict and sent it back to West Virginia for further proceedings without Benjamin.

Blankenship said his support for Benjamin in 2004 was really opposition to his opponent, former Justice Warren McGraw.

"Like millions of other Americans, I contributed my time, my energy, and, yes, my money to oppose a candidate I disagreed with personally and politically,'' Blankenship said. "It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court's ruling is being reported as a matter of corporate influence and judicial review. This is not and was not ever about the company I have served for more than 27 years or the industry I have worked for the majority of my entire life.''

Blankenship said he remains optimistic the Harman case will be decided in Massey's favor again, but questioned whether the high court's decision will help improve political debate.

"West Virginia has made significant strides since the defeat of Justice McGraw. Further improvement will only continue if West Virginians feel that they can freely exercise their right to ask for better government,'' he said.

Massey is the nation's fourth-largest coal producer by revenue and operates mines in West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia.

 

Report a violation or offensive comment.
[X] Close
to report abuse.
Posted By: WVState (11:29pm 06-13-2009)
Report Abuse


How is this judicial activism? There is, in fact, a law on the books in West Virginia requiring a judge to recuse from a case that has an appearance of interest conflict. Honestly, this ruling isn't about Caperton Coal, it's about Brent Benjamin's poor judgment. Anyone could see that $3 million possible conflict of interest.

If you want your rulings to be accepted, they have to be rulings that everyone on both sides can say were impartial.

Posted By: FYI25203 (3:45pm 06-13-2009)
Report Abuse


What about Arch Coal dakman? Are they thugs with no conscience, paying big bucks to destroy our mountains?

Posted By: dakman (9:16am 06-13-2009)
Report Abuse


Don is just a corporate thug with no conscience, paying big bucks to keep on destroying our mountains.

Posted By: Earned_My_Degree (8:16am 06-12-2009)
Report Abuse


Don Blankenship says I have serious concerns about the effects of free speech from this Supreme Court decision and by the way, how much is that Judge sitting in the corner?

Advertisement - Your ad here
Advertisement - Your ad here
Advertisement - Your ad here