Although coal keeps the lights on, it is the U.S. Supreme Court that has illuminated the issues inherent in a $3 million contribution to a West Virginian's political campaign.

The episode began earlier, when a Boone County jury concluded that coal giant Massey Energy had failed to honor a contract. Massey was ordered to pay about $50 million to the other party, an amount that, with interest, now has reached $82 million.

Massey appealed to the West Virginia Supreme Court, where the decision by the good people of Boone County was reversed and, by sheer coincidence, the deciding vote was cast in Massey's favor by Justice Brent Benjamin who, by yet a second remarkable coincidence, is the same person whose campaign had received the $3 million in contributions from Massey's CEO, Don Blankenship.

The case went up to the nation's highest court. Massey Energy's lawyers advised the nine justices that Blankenship's campaign contributions meant nothing special to West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Benjamin and, thus, Benjamin had no need to step aside when cases involved Massey.

With motives pure as the driven snow on a mountaintop removal site, Massey's attorneys reported they had unearthed no indication of a relationship between Blankenship and Benjamin. And that is a fact, if you can dig your way out from under that pile of cash, and if you don't count Misters Benjamin and Blankenship finding themselves in a small group dinner party three weeks before a vote by Benjamin that, by still another incredible coincidence, saved Massey Energy tens of millions, according to the Gazette's Paul J. Nyden.

In determining whether to hear a case or not, Justice Benjamin voted in Massey's favor four times, against Massey once. When the West Virginia high court actually heard cases involving Massey, and when Benjamin cast the deciding vote, he sided with Massey twice, against it once, according to Nyden's research.

When Justice Benjamin's vote wouldn't have changed the outcome, he voted against Massey almost every time. At a minimum, that prevented Benjamin from sticking out like a "ditto-head" at a meeting of the ACLU.

In Washington, Massey's lawyers argued that rather than being for Benjamin, the company's CEO was against Benjamin's opponent. But there was a skunk at that picnic because, at least six times, Mr. Blankenship had written on the required campaign contribution paperwork that his cash was going to "support" Benjamin's candidacy. Awkward. Standing before the U.S. Supreme Court, had Massey's lawyers considered themselves to be in the position of arguing that Mr. Blankenship might have been confused about his own intentions?

Maybe, because additional episodes of self-contradiction seem within arm's reach. For example, Mr. Blankenship and his company frequently file lawsuits, yet he would, I suspect, contend that it has been all the other litigation-prone mountaineers who have made West Virginia into tort-hell.

Additional strange revelations have occurred. For example, having overlooked the coal industry's 90 percent decline in West Virginia jobs over the past five decades, Mr. Blankenship publicly attributed West Virginia's population decline during that same time to his weakly documented claim that people have departed West Virginia in droves mainly because our courts take it easy on drunk drivers and pedophiles.

While hearing arguments on whether an individual's enormous contributions could reasonably seem to have influenced our own Justice Brent Benjamin, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said, "We have never confronted a case as extreme as this . . .  ." Justice Anthony Kennedy said the political contributions were "obviously improper . . .  ." Justice David Souter spoke of a "probability of bias . . .  ."

Conservative Justice John Roberts countered, asking whether a judge receiving contributions from the United Mine Workers should be voting on the union's cases. Similarly, Justice Antonin Scalia, wide-eyed, held that the court was being asked to adopt a standard of bias "out of nowhere."

Now the U.S. high court has decided the case in a 5-4 decision: Justice Brent Benjamin should have recused himself from cases involving Massey. A lot of West Virginians always knew that.

Wyatt is a Gazette contributing columnist and a professor at Marshall University.

Although coal keeps the lights on, it is the U.S. Supreme Court that has illuminated the issues inherent in a $3 million contribution to a West Virginian's political campaign.

The episode began earlier, when a Boone County jury concluded that coal giant Massey Energy had failed to honor a contract. Massey was ordered to pay about $50 million to the other party, an amount that, with interest, now has reached $82 million.

Massey appealed to the West Virginia Supreme Court, where the decision by the good people of Boone County was reversed and, by sheer coincidence, the deciding vote was cast in Massey's favor by Justice Brent Benjamin who, by yet a second remarkable coincidence, is the same person whose campaign had received the $3 million in contributions from Massey's CEO, Don Blankenship.

The case went up to the nation's highest court. Massey Energy's lawyers advised the nine justices that Blankenship's campaign contributions meant nothing special to West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Benjamin and, thus, Benjamin had no need to step aside when cases involved Massey.

With motives pure as the driven snow on a mountaintop removal site, Massey's attorneys reported they had unearthed no indication of a relationship between Blankenship and Benjamin. And that is a fact, if you can dig your way out from under that pile of cash, and if you don't count Misters Benjamin and Blankenship finding themselves in a small group dinner party three weeks before a vote by Benjamin that, by still another incredible coincidence, saved Massey Energy tens of millions, according to the Gazette's Paul J. Nyden.

In determining whether to hear a case or not, Justice Benjamin voted in Massey's favor four times, against Massey once. When the West Virginia high court actually heard cases involving Massey, and when Benjamin cast the deciding vote, he sided with Massey twice, against it once, according to Nyden's research.

When Justice Benjamin's vote wouldn't have changed the outcome, he voted against Massey almost every time. At a minimum, that prevented Benjamin from sticking out like a "ditto-head" at a meeting of the ACLU.

In Washington, Massey's lawyers argued that rather than being for Benjamin, the company's CEO was against Benjamin's opponent. But there was a skunk at that picnic because, at least six times, Mr. Blankenship had written on the required campaign contribution paperwork that his cash was going to "support" Benjamin's candidacy. Awkward. Standing before the U.S. Supreme Court, had Massey's lawyers considered themselves to be in the position of arguing that Mr. Blankenship might have been confused about his own intentions?

Maybe, because additional episodes of self-contradiction seem within arm's reach. For example, Mr. Blankenship and his company frequently file lawsuits, yet he would, I suspect, contend that it has been all the other litigation-prone mountaineers who have made West Virginia into tort-hell.

Additional strange revelations have occurred. For example, having overlooked the coal industry's 90 percent decline in West Virginia jobs over the past five decades, Mr. Blankenship publicly attributed West Virginia's population decline during that same time to his weakly documented claim that people have departed West Virginia in droves mainly because our courts take it easy on drunk drivers and pedophiles.

While hearing arguments on whether an individual's enormous contributions could reasonably seem to have influenced our own Justice Brent Benjamin, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said, "We have never confronted a case as extreme as this . . .  ." Justice Anthony Kennedy said the political contributions were "obviously improper . . .  ." Justice David Souter spoke of a "probability of bias . . .  ."

Conservative Justice John Roberts countered, asking whether a judge receiving contributions from the United Mine Workers should be voting on the union's cases. Similarly, Justice Antonin Scalia, wide-eyed, held that the court was being asked to adopt a standard of bias "out of nowhere."

Now the U.S. high court has decided the case in a 5-4 decision: Justice Brent Benjamin should have recused himself from cases involving Massey. A lot of West Virginians always knew that.

Wyatt is a Gazette contributing columnist and a professor at Marshall University.