 | ||||
way other than politically and as a partisan in his tenure on the Supreme Court. But he is also becoming embroiled in something of a mystery -- a mystery that deserves to be unraveled.
There are a number of Massey cases now pending before the Supreme Court. Three have recently been in the news: the case involving Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel; a coal silo case involving the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection; and a deliberate intent case from Nicholas County. In the weeks since he so publicly disqualified himself in the Caperton/Massey case, he has so far not disqualified himself from other Massey cases. Why not? What is so different about the Caperton case? Let us try to figure it out. In his recusal diatribe filed on February 15, he rips into Don Blankenship, his colleagues, and even a member of Benjamin's staff. But he writes very little about how he came to the revelation that he should step aside in the Caperton case. He generally cites only an "appearance of impropriety" -- an appearance of impropriety he somehow believes only applies to the Caperton case. Why?Why does Starcher believe there is an "appearance of impropriety" involved in his hearing of the Caperton/Massey case, but not all Massey-related cases? What is it that makes Caperton different? Let's explore the possibilities...Several interesting questions Justice Starcher should be asked
The most obvious is that it is in the Caperton case that the infamous photographs of Maynard and Blankenship in vacation-land surfaced, presented by Caperton lawyers to force Maynard off the case. Perhaps, if Starcher follows through with his one-man recusal show on April 10, he might answer a few questions of interest, such as:* When did you or anyone on your staff first become aware of the Blankenship/Maynard photographs?* How did you become aware of them?* Did you or anyone on your staff have any knowledge of the existence of the photos prior to Jan. 15, 2008?* Why have you failed to disqualify yourself in all Massey cases?* Have you or anyone on your staff had any communications about the Caperton case or Massey disqualifications in that case with anyone outside the Court -- including members of the press, litigants, political operatives, candidates -- while the case has been pending before the Supreme Court?Think carefully about this: Is it really just a coincidence that Starcher has recused himself only in the one Massey case in which the photographs were filed? Could the "appearance of impropriety" to which he refers really be about something other than his public comments on Massey and Blankenship -- something solely related to the Caperton case? Something Starcher knows could eventually be revealed to the public?So now, we know that Starcher has successfully peddled his story to ABC News, a national outlet happy to give him a forum for a stereotypical story of an old-time coal boss buying justice. Never mind that such outlets are always happy to reinforce negative stereotypes about West Virginia. Again, it is mindful of nothing so much as Norma Desmond in "Sunset Boulevard," i.e., Larry Starcher is still a big man -- it's the Supreme Court that got small.We are nearing the end credits on Starcher's judicial career. And as the cameras gather to this spectacle, much as they gather to a car crash, we can envision Justice Starcher looking dreamily into the cameras and saying, "ABC, I'm ready for my close up!" It must have been his proudest moment.
Abernathy Strategies
RepublicanGazette
Tuesday, April 8, 2008 "When news breaks, we fix it" Published daily except some days
Submissions welcome
The Republican Gazette welcomes Emails to the Editor and press releases. All submitted items must include the name and contact information for the author of the article, and all articles will only be published with the author's name included. Thank you for reading and participating in The Republican Gazette, another of West Virginia's most biased publications.
All opinions are those of The Republican Gazette and its editor, Gary Abernathy, except letters or commentary signed by others, and do not reflect the views of anyone else, including clients of Abernathy Strategies.
-------
Search the Republican Gazette ---->
The emotion and anger of Larry Starcher
penchant for undisciplined emotionalism -- often manifesting itself in outrageous public pronouncements -- has historically limited his potential in his own party and in West Virginia politics. So Starcher remained in the judiciary, rather than seek executive office.
Starcher's inappropriate behavior has not escaped the notice of many longtime observers. In a recent commentary, MetroNews "Talkline" host Hoppy Kercheval wrote, "I have known Starcher for many years, covering him first when he was a circuit court judge in Monongalia County. I've seen him display remarkable acts of kindness and goodwill that indicate a big heart. But I've also seen him act like an ass. Starcher can be bullheaded and boorish. But then again, he can also be warm and engaging."In December of 2007, Wheeling News-Register editor Mike Myers wrote, "With all due respect to Starcher, he has become something of an embarrassment to his party."In October of 2006, West Virginia Media boss Bray Carey noted, "A lot of people wrote (Starcher) off a long time ago as someone incapable of behaving like a judge. But when he goes on the national stage and trashes his colleagues and uses juvenile language, he goes way too far." A history of outbursts and insults
Considered extreme and often reckless, Starcher's power derived from a reputation for bullying and a willingness to do or say almost anything. Those are not good qualities for a judge, but they are effective to run a political agenda from the courts. From 2001 to 2004, Starcher, McGraw and Justice Joe Albright joined together to take judicial activism to its apex in West Virginia. But along the way, Starcher's outbursts and McGraw's rants got in their way. The people of West Virginia said enough is enough, and by electing newcomer Benjamin they demonstrated their disdain for the extremism of Larry, Warren and Joe. They wanted change and they voted for change. And the reviews of the Court since 2004 have been positive.Now, with Spike Maynard seeking reelection, Starcher and his allies are faced with at least four more years of the fairness and moderation brought back to the Court by the loose affiliation of Benjamin, Maynard and Justice Robin Davis. Apparently, that prospect horrifies radicals and extremists like Starcher, who, in their own minds, have always known what is best for the state, public sentiment be damned. Such is the arrogance of power. Such is the elitism of a man who would use the mechanisms of government to control, rather than to serve. And if he can't control the judiciary, he seems perfectly happy to destroy it. Starcher is an angry man. He is sometimes a profane man. In 1993, in a case over which he was presiding, Starcher contacted the prosecutor to discuss how best to convict a defendant in a criminal case, transforming himself into a partisan participant. The defendant was convicted, but Starcher was reprimanded for his actions.In 2001, referring to a former magistrate, Starcher said, "I never could stand the bitch," according to the Charleston Gazette. He famously cussed out a legislative staff lawyer when the attorney attempted to shield a lawmaker from Starcher's anger over the lack of a judicial pay raise. And, of course, he refers to the chief executive officer of a company with cases before the court as "stupid" and "a clown."Last fall, Starcher, in a packed Marshall University auditorium where the Supreme Court was meeting, disparaged an attorney for her Pakistani heritage. When challenged on this apparent bias, Starcher compounded the insult by further demeaning the attorney -- a well-respected lawyer from Washington D.C. --by referring to her as an "argument prop" and "window dressing."More? Ok. When running for the Supreme Court in 1996, he boasted of siding as a judge with workers on asbestos cases and promised that "neither you nor labor would be disappointed with a justice such as (me) on the court." He told the New York Times that his colleague, Brent Benjamin, was "bought and paid for" by Massey Energy, despite the fact that Benjamin had voted against Massey in all the decisions rendered by the Court up to that time. When Judge Jim Rowe challenged Starcher's friend, Warren McGraw, in the 2004 Primary election, Starcher began screaming at Rowe from the back of the room during a candidate forum, disrupting Rowe's presentation and the forum itself.The mystery of the Caperton recusal
Now, as a lame duck, Starcher faces rapidly impending political irrelvance. For a man who considers himself practically indispensable to West Virginia, there could be nothing worse than a future of obscurity and a legacy as a failed, radical jurist. And so, Starcher has decided not to go quietly into that political night. After a career of insults, contempt for the system he serves, and blatant politicization of West Virginia's court system, Starcher would now have us believe he has taken the high ground in recusing himself from the Caperton/Massey case. So honorable and omnipotent has he become, in fact, that he fancies himself the appropriate arbiter of whether Justice Benjamin should also remain on the case. But Starcher's past betrays him. Starcher has never acted in any Whether berating attorneys or ridiculing plaintiffs, the activist justice has seldom seemed to be a happy man
It is easy to underestimate Larry Starcher. Controversial. Partisan. Outspoken. Starcher chose not to run for reelection this year. The conventional wisdom is that he wanted to run, and wanted to return the Supreme Court to the highly activist, highly partisan court it was until 2004 when fellow activist Warren McGraw was defeated by Brent Benjamin. But he couldn't. As good a politician as he is, Starcher's ABC does expected hit job, omits facts, gets others wrong
ABC News aired its hit jobs on Don Blankenship and Justice Spike Maynard on Monday, and the only thing missing was an "executive producer" credit for Justice Larry Starcher, who has obviously orchestrated the entire episode.Running segments on both its evening news broadcast and on "Nightline," ABC's take on the subject was almost exactly as predicted here last week. In fact, it was eerie how close it was. If you missed "Nightline," just click here for a recap written before the fact. Only on network television news can a complicated story be summed up and presented in a manner so shallow it makes "The Beverly Hillbillies" look like a production of "Masterpiece Theater."What point now is there for Starcher to even go through the motions of holding his April 10 hearing to consider arguments on his recusal from the Massey Energy-Wheeling Pitt case? Any pretense of lack of bias against Massey has evaporated once and for all. It was interesting that Brent Benjamin was never mentioned by name in the evening news report. But they made up for it on "Nightline," alluding to him as the justice "bought and paid for" by Blankenship, a statement with which Starcher eagerly agreed on national network news. The report failed to mention, of course, that while Benjamin sided with Massey on the recent $76 million Caperton case, he voted against Massey on many other cases, including a whopping $500 million tax case. Naturally, there was absolutely no discussion of the merits of the Caperton/Massey case -- just who won, who lost, and who voted how.It was also interesting that the TV ad against Warren McGraw that was shown and referred to as part of Blankenship's campaign in fact was one produced and paid for by the Benjamin campaign. Details, details.... not that they matter.What does matter, of course, is that there is an election this year, and the anti-business forces desperately want Menis Ketchum and Bob Bastress elected, with Margaret Workman an acceptable third option. The entire recusal controversy is solely a production of political operatives creating the playing field they want for November, and ABC blindly played along.The difficulty of being nice about Rusty Morgan
I hate primaries. They force people of the same party to choose up sides, supporting one member of your party over the other. Such is the difficulty I face in the 16th District State Senate race. One candidate, Bob Adams, is both my friend of many years and my client. I do not know at all his opponent, Jefferson County Commissioner Rusty Morgan. And yet, I have tried not to be too harsh on him, because he is a Republican. The criticisms I have leveled at him once or twice have been very mild in relation to what I could have legitimately said, based onMorgan's own statements and actions.
But when a Republican candidate describes himself as pro-choice on abortion, ambivalent about civil unions for gays, and tells a local newspaper, "I am not going to worry about whether people think I’m a Republican or not," my reluctance to criticize is much easier to overcome. Now, someone -- I honestly have no knowledge of who produced or posted this item -- has placed on You Tube a video of a Jefferson budget meeting that might verify why Morgan should not be in the State Senate.