Yesterday we told you about a new recusal controversy in West Virginia, in which a sitting Justice who had said about the state's limit on non-economic damages, "I will not vote to overturn it. I will not vote to change it. I will not vote to modify it," declined to recuse himself on a case on just that question. Today, he's changed his mind, sort of:
"Upon further reflection, I am disqualifying myself from the above case. I strongly believe there is absolutely no legal basis for my disqualification. See Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002). However, it appears to me that the lawyers who moved to disqualify me are attempting to create a 'firestorm' by assaulting the integrity and impartiality of West Virginia's Supreme Court.
"I promptly sent my disqualification response to the lawyers on September 23, 2010. The next day my response appeared in a Washington internet blog. (See copy attached.) How did a blog so quickly get my disqualification memorandum which was sent only to the lawyers in the case? Why is it newsworthy that a West Virginia judge previously exercised his right of Freedom of Speech?
"The blog did not have the decency to publish my First Amendment rationale as authorized by Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, or quote the legal rationale from White set out in my memorandum.
"I could care less if the blogs or press crucify me personally. However, I believe the lawyers are pulling the press's strings to place our Court in an unfavorable light. A lot of hard work has been accomplished to keep the Court out of the limelight since I took office on January 1, 2009. I don't want our Court to be publicly maligned by those with a 'win-at-all-cost' mentality. I disqualify myself from this case."
