
But Liptak notes that the facts of the case may not lend themselves to a Supreme Court decision about judicial elections and the increasing prevalence of big contributors who stand to gain or lose at the hands of judges. And in an interview in his unassuming office near Belfry, Ky., Blankenship told Liptak that he spent millions in 2004 to defeat Justice Warren McGraw, whom he did not like, rather than to ensure favorable rulings from Justice Brent Benjamin, who is in the fifth year of a 12-year term.
“I’ve been around West Virginia long enough to know that politicians don’t stay bought, particularly ones that are going to be in office for 12 years,” Blankenship said. “So I would never go out and spend money to try to gain favor with a politician. Eliminating a bad politician makes sense. Electing somebody hoping he’s going to be in your favor doesn’t make any sense at all. . . . Massey always has cases,” Liptak notes, "The company is a frequent plaintiff, and it has attracted lawsuits over environmental, workplace safety and labor issues." (Read more)
The Charleston Gazette has been on this story from the start, and the Sunday Gazette-Mail has a story by Paul Nyden debunking an assertion in a Massey brief that there was no indication that Blankenship and Benjamin had met. It also notes that oral arguments in the case are scheduled for March 3. To read it, click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment