I don’t think the U.S. Supremes need to spend that much effort on this case.

My bet is that the Court uses “GVR” to handle the case. They grant the case, vacate the lower court opinion, and remand for reconsideration under existing precedent. The Court doesn’t hear arguments, and doesn’t write a detailed opinion. Grant, Vacate, and Remand in one shot. And I believe the Court resolves quite a few more cases with GVR than with full argument and opinion.

I don’t know if Davis’s opinion is right or wrong; what I know is that Benjamin shouldn’t have had a hand in the decision. That alone supports a GVR decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Surely a lawyer as esteemed as you knows that Caperton statistically doesn’t even have a 1% chance of having his case heard.

Frank is right here. Just because you don’t like Blankenship, it does not mean that this decision is incorrect.

I also think you will find that in every case that has gone to the U. S. Supreme Court since she has been on WV’s court, her side has been upheld.

I know that this is supposed to be a political discussion (or, perhaps, a series of character assassinations), but maybe, just maybe, there is legal merit in the majority position. It seems solidly argued to me.

Could it be that the court is so fair in WV that even the devil himself (Don B., of course) can get a fair shake?

One last thing: had Starcher stuck to his guns and stayed in the case, there would have been party time at the Caperton compound tonight!!!!
Cookman, the first judge appointed when Maynard bailed, voted with Albright. I suspect that there are a few questions popping up about whether or not the Caperton lawyers should have pressed Starcher to recuse. Thus, political gamesmanship distracts an attorney from taking care of his client’s interest.

Of course, in theory Benjamin has been bought and paid for so he is not supposed to appoint anybody who could possibly vote against the Massey position. I guess the Caperton lawyers felt safe in working against their clients’ interests when they pushed at Starcher to leave the case. They had become so sure of their narrow political projections that, in their minds, it had become impossible to have the scenario that just occurred: Benjamin’s appointee voting against Massey.

Caperton should fire the lot of them for this stupid gambit.

Nah. This thing’s going to the U.S. Supreme Court. I give it a 50-50 chance of being reversed on Due Process grounds, since Brent Benjamin sat on the case after getting $3.5 million in help from Massey’s CEO.

Unless, of course, Benjamin gets some sense, drops out, and the W.Va. Court rehears it a third time.

John 8:32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Amen

So is he getting some of that these days? You seem to know some much about the inner workings of the Court, please tell us.

I will assume he is until I hear different. Since that is the way you function, on rumors and assumptions there should be no problem.

Thanks for the lengthy, thoughtful comment. You certainly put a lot of time and effort into it. I didn’t know a Southerner could string that many sentences together into a semi-coherent thought.

Now, allow me to retort.

You obviously don’t know me. I’ve never thought of myself as “Machiavellian” or “Rovian.” I’m not trying to cleverly or subtlely manipulate people into voting a particular way.

I’m not trying to throw any court employees to the wolves. Re-read my post. Court employees are already deep in this mess — the question is whether they’ll be bribed or intimidated into lying to protect Maynard in exchange for their jobs. The result of that would be the employees go to jail — and lose their jobs in the process.

I know the truth; if you’re like most citizens, I’ll bet you don’t. I’m pretty sure I know what happened in Monaco, and what happened afterward. I just can’t fully confirm it. I mean, I’ve known about the FBI investigation for several weeks now; I just couldn’t confirm it until last Thursday. That’s why I never mentioned it. So I don’t want to throw out a third-hand hearsay telling of the story without solid details.

The problem is that Maynard and his campaign keep spinning the story. They don’t want the truth to become public — that’s why Maynard keeps fibbing and saying he’s already been honest, he’s told the whole story . . . now move along and stop asking questions.

No, I’m motivated by anger. I’m simply furious that the Supreme Court has devolved into a system of justice being given to a select few. After 12 years of watching Spike Maynard’s selfishness, I’ve had enough.

You have no idea how crushing its like, to be a lawyer trying to represent a client, and you hear how Spike Maynard voted for a young female lawyer and said “I couldn’t vote against her, she’s too pretty.” You have no idea what its like to hear Spike Maynard on the campaign trail quoting an opinion he wrote — after you overheard him tell a friend that he knew the opinion was totally wrong, totally contrary to any law, but he just wrote it that way to “suck up to the masses.”

The stories I’m hearing from people are horrifying. So this election has to change the composition of the Court. Period.

The best way to do that is to collect the stories, and pass them on to you for action.

I could care less right now who wins the election, as long as it isn’t Spike Maynard. It isn’t a matter of Democrats winning, or Republicans winning either. Its about putting two new, untainted people on the Court who are willing to do business a new way.

Every Democratic voter has two votes to cast. The way I see it, if they give one of their votes to Maynard, their other vote is a waste. Maynard, Davis and Benjamin have a nice, friendly cabal — if a new Democrat gets on the court, they’ll either be forced to vote with the Big Three or spend 12 years twiddling their thumbs. Plus, in the general election Republicans will pour their money into re-electing Maynard and electing Beth Walker; it won’t matter if one or both of them win. Davis and Benjamin will have a new ally. So Maynard’s got to lose the primary, otherwise there won’t be any change in the way the court conducts business.

To answer your accusation, I’ve got a conscience. I’ve also got a sense of justice and fairness. And I’m sick of having my conscience shocked by the total lack of justice and fairness from the Supreme Court.

How exactly is that Machiavellian?

Rumpole is certainly not that type of progressive. He believes that nothing less than a scorched earth policy must be employed to achieve the ends that he seeks. He is a Machiavellian of the first order. Rumpole doesn’t care about the truth. To him, truth is the finished result, the final product. In this political year, Rumpole’s truth isn’t about what transpired in Monaco. Rumpole’s truth is seeing Justice Maynard being defeated and Bob Bastress winning in the Democratic primary on May 13 and ultimately being elected in November. This is it. Pure and simple.

That makes Rumpole no better than Don Blankenship and his minions who, four years ago, ruined the career of Warren McGraw, an honorable man who served this state with dignity as a Supreme Court Justice. Rumpole wants to manipulate and intimidate people into serving his ends, just as he is attempting to do in this latest blog. Rumpole wants this employee in question to provide information which isn’t truthful, but which serves the ends of Rumpole’s political goals.

Even if you share those same political goals with Rumpole, you should abhor his tactics. Rumpole has effectively demonstrated that you can be a liberal and be Karl Rove all at the same time.

Rumpole is perfectly content to try and roll over, intimidate and manipulate employees of the Court who he knows have absolutely no knowledge of any wrongdoing. By suggesting that this individual may go to prison, he is urging that this employee implicate Justice Maynard or Don Blankenship regardless of whether or not this individual has any actual knowledge of wrongdoing. Rumpole has no reservation about using this employee who is a living, breathing human being who may have a family to support in order to get Justice Maynard off of the Court.

Rumpole claims to be a lawyer. He certainly exhibits no respect for the members of our state’s highest Court. I probably disagree with Justice Maynard’s decisions far more than I agree with them. Nevertheless, I afford him the due respect as a member of the Court that Rumpole sees fit to disregard. And people wonder why the public has such disdain for lawyers. Rumpole is our poster boy for the image of callous lawyers who have no scruples or common decency. He is the butt of all lawyer jokes. Thanks, Rumpole, you make us all so proud and you do so much to advance the legal profession.

I suspect that Rumpole’s lack of basic morality also stems from the fact that he is a heartless, soulless Yankee. This is probably being unfair to Rumpole. But, I was raised in the South where you always strive to be a gentleman and to have an honest, intelligent conversation and debate, not the sort of drivel that consistently flows from Rumpole. I happen to know that he is a brazen and arrogant Yankee who, like so many from the North, engage their mouths before engaging their brains. Rumpole never had the good fortune of having a Momma who would smack some sense into him when he was disrespectful to her. That is why he cares not who he offends and cares not what lies he tells today. That is also why he has such diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain.

Rumpole, I know who you are and I am ashamed that you try to be a progressive. If Bob Bastress had any sense, he would disown you. You are a disgrace to those of us who are progressives because you don’t bat an eye before running over the very people that you claim to represent and care about.

None of this is going to matter to you because you have no conscience. I just hope that those of you who read this blog and turn a blind eye to his destructive tactics will pause to consider the ramifications of his actions. If we win elections, it should be because of our ideas. It shouldn’t be because we have learned how to become like Karl Rove.