Principles

by: misoverstood

Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 21:30:12 PM EST

Details of Abernathy's misunderstanding after the jump.

Abernathy then accuses Mr. Fawcett of forgetting which client he is representing because Benjamin held in favor of Mountain State Carbon (along with the other four Justices) and against Massey in a prior decision.  Abernathy says:

Is Fawcett representing the best interests of his client, Mountain State, by seeking the recusal of a judge who has already ruled in favor of his client? If you had a lawyer who was fighting to get rid of a judge who has already proven to be sympathetic to your side, would you keep that lawyer?

There are two points that I would like to make here.  First, of course Fawcett is representing the best interest of his client, because the judge who replaces Benjamin will not be a judge elected with money from his client's opponent.  It's not like they could replace Benjamin with someone more sympathetic to Massey.  No, whoever replaces Benjamin will undoubtedly be less partial.

Second, Abernathy clearly has no idea of what it means to have principles.  If you believe, which Mr. Fawcett clearly does, that Benjamin may be biased by the Massey money that elected him, then you should always ask for Benjamin to recuse himself in cases against Massey regardless of the outcome of any prior decisions.  It would be an empty argument if you only asked Benjamin to recuse himself when you thought he would vote against your client and for Massey.

Abernathy asks, "Could this be a case of a lawyer so caught up in winning a point at the U.S. Supreme Court level that he's forgotten which client he's representing in which case today?"  No.  I think it is the case of a lawyer so caught up in representing his clients and so caught up in his belief that Benjamin is biased by Massey's money that he has refused to give Benjamin a pass in a case where he apparently is willing to rule against Massey.

The bottom line is that Mr. Fawcett believes a judge who was elected on the backs of a corporation should not hear any case that involves that corporation.  It is an easy point to agree with and the U.S. Supreme Court will decide soon if it is based in the constitution, thus requiring Benjamin to remain out of all Massey cases permanently.