NationStates Jolt Archive

The Califorinia Supreme Court is denying review of an appeal that they had originally agreed to hear because four of the seven justices on the Court have investments in the oil companies that may be at issue.

Conflict of Interest Tanks Worker's Case (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/01/13/financial/f092815S96.DTL)
By PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press Writer

Monday, January 14, 2008
(01-14) 15:15 PST San Francisco (AP) --

For years, Braxton Berkley was exposed to chemicals while helping build top-secret military planes at Lockheed Martin's storied Skunk Works plant. He says those chemicals made him ill — but his case reached a dead end at the state's highest court.

The California Supreme Court has refused to hear his appeal not on legal merits, but because four of the seven justices cited a conflict of interest because they controlled stock in oil companies that provided some of the solvents at issue in the case.

"It's unfair and I am very disgusted with the courts," said Berkley, who worked at Lockheed during the height of the Cold War and is now a minister in Pacoima, Calif. He suffers from diabetes and arthritis that he says were caused by the chemicals. "A lot of my friends died because of the toxic chemicals we handled."

It's common for at least one justice to bow out of a case because of a financial or personal conflict. California Chief Justice Ron George, for instance, recuses himself from cases handled by the prominent law firm where his son practices. In those situations, an appellate judge is temporarily appointed to the Supreme Court to hear that case.

George said the remaining justices decided to dismiss the case because they were concerned that a Supreme Court ruling made with a majority of temporary justices wouldn't hold the same weight as an opinion of the permanent court.

"This is a very unusual situation and I hope it doesn't recur," George said.

Some legal advocates say the justices should be required to put their stock holdings into a blind trust. But California's Administrative Office of the Courts has ruled that this is impossible because justices are required to closely manage their portfolios, George said. State law says judges have a duty to know about any personal financial conflicts so they can recuse themselves if a conflict arises.

The court's action has been the talk of the appellate bar, leaving lawyers on both sides in disbelief and law professors scratching their heads for a precedent.

"It's an odd one," said Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen.

That's little consolation to Berkley and his 24 former co-workers involved in the suit who have sought a multimillion-dollar verdict to pay for medical bills, pain and suffering. Now, even their lawyers concede the case is dead.

The Supreme Court initially agreed to hear the Lockheed case in 2005 to settle an important legal question of how much leeway a judge has in barring expert witnesses from testifying.

Berkley and hundreds of other workers claimed that chemicals used to degrease parts and wash their hands made them ill. The cases began going to trial a decade ago in groups of about a dozen each. When the court agreed to hear Berkley's case, which named ExxonMobil Corp. and Unocal Corp., only Justice Ming Chin had a conflict because of the stock he owned.

A judge had ruled in 2001 that the workers' central witness, a scientist, lacked enough evidence to testify that the solvents Berkley and his colleagues handled caused their various diseases.

Then, last year, Justice Marvin Baxter's aunt died and he was made executor of her estate. He became the fourth justice to control oil company stock involved in the case. When Chevron bought Unocal in August 2005, Justices Carol Corrigan and Joyce Kennard had also found themselves owning stock in oil companies entangled in the case.

Instead of appointing four temporary judges, George said, the remaining justices decided in November to dismiss the case and wait for another case to come before them to settle the expert witness question. No such case currently exists.

Meanwhile, the other cases against Lockheed have mostly fizzled out, and one $760 million verdict was reversed on appeal.

Because Berkley's case is a state case with no federal issues, it can't be appealed to any other court, so the lawsuit is effectively finished. George said the Lockheed workers had their cases thoroughly reviewed by trial and appellate judges.

"It's not as if they didn't have their day in court," George said.


This is an unconscionable travesty of justice. Justices should be required to put their stock holdings into a blind trust, so this sort of thing cannot happen.

I'm curious why the remaining 3 judges could not have heard the case. Does california require a ruling by the majority of the panel, not the majority of those who heard it?

Wait, seriously? Am I getting this right-that they decided that since they had an interest in the company they'd be biased towards the company so they decided to just rule in favor of the company by dismissing the case?

That's not right, is it?

Wait, seriously? Am I getting this right-that they decided that since they had an interest in the company they'd be biased towards the company so they decided to just rule in favor of the company by dismissing the case?

That's not right, is it? I am afraid it is.

Although the Court clearly doesn't want it explained that way, you are essentiallly right.

Wait, seriously? Am I getting this right-that they decided that since they had an interest in the company they'd be biased towards the company so they decided to just rule in favor of the company by dismissing the case?

That's not right, is it?

Um, not exactly. It's no so much that they would be biased, however, because they have a potential financial interest in the outcome of the case, there's the possiblity they might be biased. So they stepped aside.

Now that by itself is fine, that's what judges are supposed to do. They're supposed to be neutral, and recuse themselves if they even have a potential interest in the outcome of the case.

The problem is, that was four members of a seven judge panel. Because only three remain, it's impossible ot reach a majority opinion. Because a majority opinion can not be reached, the court can not hear the case.

They did not "rule in favor of the company". The company had already won at the lower appeals level. Because the state supreme court can not hear the case, the highest judgement already in place stands, which was in favor of the company.

Presumably, if the appellate court had ruled for the plaintiffs, the case would still have been dismissed and the plaintiffs would have won. It's not like they said "we're biased, so company wins", it's "we have the possiblity of being biased, so we recuse ourselves, which leaves no ability to reach a majority opinion, so we can not hear this case, so the decision of the lower court, which happened to be for the company, stands"

They're not really ruling in favor of anybody. They can't hear the case, so the highest opinion already held stands. It may look a bit sketchy, but I at least have some faith that if the plaintiffs had won at the appeals level, this still would have happened, and favored them.

Presumably, if the appellate court had ruled for the plaintiffs, the case would still have been dismissed and the plaintiffs would have won.
No, in that case they would have said the hypothetical conflict of interest didn't require them to recuse themselves, and they would have found a way to overrule.

The Califorinia Supreme Court is denying review of an appeal that they had originally agreed to hear because four of the seven justices on the Court have investments in the oil companies that may be at issue.

This is an unconscionable travesty of justice. Justices should be required to put their stock holdings into a blind trust, so this sort of thing cannot happen.
Either that, or allow the remaining 3 justices rule as a triumvirate?

Automatic appeal to the SCOTUS?

Either that, or allow the remaining 3 justices rule as a triumvirate?

I think California law does not allow the supreme court to sit without at least a majority of judges.

Automatic appeal to the SCOTUS?

As the article states, SCOTUS is a federal court, this is purely a matter of state law. SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over this issue.

I think California law does not allow the supreme court to sit without at least a majority of judges.

As the article states, SCOTUS is a federal court, this is purely a matter of state law. SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over this issue.
Then it would appear that the plaintiff's constitutional right to appeal has been violated?

Then it would appear that the plaintiff's constitutional right to appeal has been violated?

Indeed - I can't imagine this decision will be allowed to stand.

Surely the spirit of the law beats out the letter here?

Then it would appear that the plaintiff's constitutional right to appeal has been violated?

?

What constitutional right to an appeal?

Indeed - I can't imagine this decision will be allowed to stand.

Not be allowed to stand? Who exactly is going to overturn it. There is no constitutional right to appellate review (M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 110 (1996)). Even if there was a right to appellate review, they had their review at the appellate level. It went to trial, it went to appeal, it was dismissed from review by the state supreme court. They already had their appeal. They were appealing the appeal.

Which is the problem. There is no federal law issue at play, so this is entirely a matter of state law. This is a decision by the California supreme court. Who exactly is going to overturn them?

More to point, who exactly can?

?

What constitutional right to an appeal?

Is there a right of appeal - asking difference between 'of' and 'to'? More clearly, people have a right to ask for an appeal but there's no guarantee that it will be granted.

Regardless, the appeal was originally granted and this seems an unequal reason for rejecting the case.

Is there a right of appeal - asking difference between 'of' and 'to'? More clearly, people have a right to ask for an appeal but there's no guarantee that it will be granted.


There is no right to appellate review. Which means the state is under no constitutional obligation to set up an appellate system. Since the state is under no obligation ot set up an appellate system, the state is under no obligation to set up an instrument to evaluate your request for an appeal.

So since there is no constitutional requirement for there to be any appellate system at the state level, there is no obligation to create any instrumentality to deal with your request for an appeal, therefore you have no right to ask for one.

I suppose you can stand on the courhouse steps and yell "I WANT AN APPEAL!" and in that sense your right to "ask for an appeal" is protected as freedom of speech. But you have no right to formally, and through the judicial system, request an appeal, since the state is under no obligation to create such a system to evaluate that request. Ergo if you had the right to make the formal request for an appeal, the state would be required, under conditions of due process, to have an instrument to handle that appeal request.

As they do not, you do not. As I said, I suppose your "right to ask for an appeal" is protected by the first amendment in so far as you can go up to people on the street and ask "hey there, can I have an appeal?" but I suppose it's more proper to say you have no right for the state to provide you any formal instrumentality to evaluate your request.

*snip*

Thanks.

Could he make a claim under the 14th Amendment, equal protection?

Thanks.

Could he make a claim under the 14th Amendment, equal protection?

Not really. Even if a state adopts a postion "you have the right to request an appeal", he can not argue that he was treated differently and denied equal protection.

He made his request, his appeal was dismissed due to an insufficient amount of judges on the panel to hear his case. While unusual, there's nothing particularly in violation about this. Apparently california has a law that does not allow the state supreme court to hear an issue if it does not have a majority of judges on the panel. That applies to everybody. The fact that it (probably) rarely comes up doesn't really change the fact.

Apparently California has a law that does not allow the state supreme court to hear an issue if it does not have a majority of judges on the panel. That applies to everybody. The fact that it (probably) rarely comes up doesn't really change the fact.

Yeah, this is what bothered me - it would apply to anyone in his position.

I do feel though that it's similar to saying, well, if everyone was black they'd be in the same position in terms of Dredd Scott.

He has been denied due process - and here I grant the point of no right to appeal, which means it becomes a little moot I suppose - that would be provided to anyone where a majority of judges did not have this conflict, through no fault of his own.

The reason I feel that this won't stand is, in many ways wrong that this should be the reason I guess, that the two bogeymen of oil and stocks are involved and that if there's a massive outcry, something should change because, frankly, where the law is an ass, there should be an ability to redress that.

EDIT: I need rewrite the above paragraph - EDIT EDIT: Given Neo Art's reply I'll let it stand with the caveat that I'm not happy with the way I expressed this

I'm saying the law is in error to allow this technicality - something that wouldn't normally matter but might if public outcry is large enough - surely someone would find the right technicality to overturn this decision.

It's certainly interesting.

The reason I feel that this won't stand is, in many ways wrong that this should be the reason I guess, that the two bogeymen of oil and stocks are involved and that if there's a massive outcry, something should change because, frankly, where the law is an ass, there should be an ability to redress that.

There is, it's called elections. If we disagree with the law we are free to elect representatives that will change it.

The court will not be overturned because, simply, there is no authority capable of overturning them. The law which allowed for this sort of thing may be changed, but that will only prevent future conditions like this from occuring, not address this case.

I don't specifically fault the judges from withdrawing. In fact, I think it's a good idea that they did. It is unfortunate what occured as a result, however.

There is, it's called elections. If we disagree with the law we are free to elect representatives that will change it.

The court will not be overturned because, simply, there is no authority capable of overturning them. The law which allowed for this sort of thing may be changed, but that will only prevent future conditions like this from occuring, not address this case.

I don't specifically fault the judges from withdrawing. In fact, I think it's a good idea that they did. It is unfortunate what occured as a result, however.

This case bothers me - I don't fault the judges either but I don't like the fact that someone has been denied a hearing due to a technicality of this nature.

It simply seems against the spirit of the law, something that nags the back of my head on this case.

I honestly don't see this as being all that bad. The plaintiff had, indeed, received his day in court - in fact, as I understand it, he would have received such a chance to tell his story three times before the state's Supreme Court would even consider it (Local Court, Apellate Court, and Superior Court). He has not in any way been denied due process.

Further, Supreme Courts turn down appeals without hearing all the time, mostly due to considering the case unworthy of their time. The reason in this case is unusual, but nor unreasonable.

Doesn't seem right that judges can decide not to hear a case because they won't like the result, but I suppose that's better than ruling in favour of their vested interests. Perhaps Judges should be theoretically economically, as well politically, neutral?

No, in that case they would have said the hypothetical conflict of interest didn't require them to recuse themselves, and they would have found a way to overrule.

You know what they say about people who readily assume things...

I honestly don't see this as being all that bad. The plaintiff had, indeed, received his day in court - in fact, as I understand it, he would have received such a chance to tell his story three times before the state's Supreme Court would even consider it (Local Court, Apellate Court, and Superior Court). He has not in any way been denied due process.

Further, Supreme Courts turn down appeals without hearing all the time, mostly due to considering the case unworthy of their time. The reason in this case is unusual, but nor unreasonable.

Agreed.

First, I am shocked that judges, especially those that hear civil cases, are not required to put their financial holdings into a blind trust.

For those who don't know, a blind trust is one in which another person/entity manages your investments for you and does not tell you what they are doing with it beyond the income/losses; for instance, they do not tell you which stocks they are buying/selling for you. I learned about the existence of blind trusts because my mother once worked for the man who was Ronald Reagan's blind trustee during his presidency. Blind trusts are used to prevent conflicts of interest.

Second, I am shocked that there is no provision for this in the law. There could be several reasons why the majority of the court could not sit to hear a case. Why is there no provision to extend jurisdiction to another California court, or to have competent judges designated to act as temporary stand-ins, if the full state supreme court cannot be available?

To grant an appeal and then refuse to hear it, and leave the plaintiff with no other recourse? This is ridiculous!

Perhaps Judges should be theoretically economically, as well politically, neutral?theoretically you have no bias whatsoever :D

in the US (and probably other countries too)
most Judges belong to a class : very Rich.
most Law makers belong to a class: very Rich.

They are all likely to own shares of Funds that invest in Big Rich Corporations.. and most got elected with the help$$$ of Rich Corporations

For example, last nite @ CNN , Edwards repeatedly asked Hillary if -once she is elected- she would turn her back on the Corp Lobbyists.. and she refused to say she would.

You know what they say about people who readily assume things...
My jaundiced view is based on a lot of ugly experiences with the judicial system (I burned my license to practice law 15 years ago).
In cases of "conflict of interest", the appearance is even more important than the reality, and the appearance in this case stinks to high heaven, which makes me very suspicious of the reality as well.

My jaundiced view is based on a lot of ugly experiences with the judicial system (I burned my license to practice law 15 years ago).
In cases of "conflict of interest", the appearance is even more important than the reality, and the appearance in this case stinks to high heaven, which makes me very suspicious of the reality as well.

So you condemn the justices who recused themselves even though they actually did the ethical thing by recusing themselves?

So you condemn the justices who recused themselves even though they actually did the ethical thing by recusing themselves?
The "ethical" thing? What they did served their self-interest.

The "ethical" thing? What they did served their self-interest.

In your opinion but I would rather have them do the ethical thing like recuse themselves instead of them receiving it and having them hold up the lower courts ruling. Odds are that was what was going to happen though I am not a psycic.

The "ethical" thing? What they did served their self-interest.

No, that's not true. The Judges who recused themselves did the right thing; it was the Judges who didn't who then decided they would not hear the case.

The Califorinia Supreme Court is denying review of an appeal that they had originally agreed to hear because four of the seven justices on the Court have investments in the oil companies that may be at issue.



This is an unconscionable travesty of justice. Justices should be required to put their stock holdings into a blind trust, so this sort of thing cannot happen.

You can call me bigot but the illogistic, sick, unjust and insane government and judicial system in California makes my blood boil!!!!:mad:

Perhaps, since they are already well off anyways, there should a barring of office holders, including judges, should be barred from having any economic interests until they leave office, so that this type of thing would not happen.

This case bothers me - I don't fault the judges either but I don't like the fact that someone has been denied a hearing due to a technicality of this nature.

It simply seems against the spirit of the law, something that nags the back of my head on this case.

I think Neo has outlined very well that the person did in fact have a hearing, this was an appeal of an appeal (etc) of a case, so they have had at least two hearings already.... They've merely been denied (through a technicality) a subsequent appeal hearing by the highest applicable court.

I'm curious why the remaining 3 judges could not have heard the case. Does california require a ruling by the majority of the panel, not the majority of those who heard it?

The problem is, that was four members of a seven judge panel. Because only three remain, it's impossible ot reach a majority opinion. Because a majority opinion can not be reached, the court can not hear the case.


I think California law does not allow the supreme court to sit without at least a majority of judges.

He made his request, his appeal was dismissed due to an insufficient amount of judges on the panel to hear his case. While unusual, there's nothing particularly in violation about this. Apparently california has a law that does not allow the state supreme court to hear an issue if it does not have a majority of judges on the panel. That applies to everybody. The fact that it (probably) rarely comes up doesn't really change the fact.

Although the rest of your analysis is spot-on as always Neo Art, I think you are making a mistaken assumption about California law and why this appeal was denied.

From the story I linked in the OP:

It's common for at least one justice to bow out of a case because of a financial or personal conflict. California Chief Justice Ron George, for instance, recuses himself from cases handled by the prominent law firm where his son practices. In those situations, an appellate judge is temporarily appointed to the Supreme Court to hear that case.

George said the remaining justices decided to dismiss the case because they were concerned that a Supreme Court ruling made with a majority of temporary justices wouldn't hold the same weight as an opinion of the permanent court.

"This is a very unusual situation and I hope it doesn't recur," George said.


It does not appear that there is a law that covered this situation. There is no law that requires a majority of regular justices. It appears that the case could have been heard with temporary justices, but the Court decided for policy reasons that they didn't want to do that. I think that decision was wrong.

I also think that the way California deals with judge's investments is wrong. They should have a blind trust.

Presumably, if the appellate court had ruled for the plaintiffs, the case would still have been dismissed and the plaintiffs would have won. It's not like they said "we're biased, so company wins", it's "we have the possiblity of being biased, so we recuse ourselves, which leaves no ability to reach a majority opinion, so we can not hear this case, so the decision of the lower court, which happened to be for the company, stands"

They're not really ruling in favor of anybody. They can't hear the case, so the highest opinion already held stands. It may look a bit sketchy, but I at least have some faith that if the plaintiffs had won at the appeals level, this still would have happened, and favored them.

Well, the Court had the option to hear the case despite the recusals -- and prior to the recusals had agreed to hear the case (suggesting the appeal has some merit).

I agree it is unfair to simply speculate that the Court would have heard the case if the plaintiffs had won at the appeals level, but there is still a stink of unfairness about the whole thing. It is a fact that the judges interests in oil companies led them to dismiss an appeal that might have adversely effected those interests. That turns the purpose of recusal laws on its head.

Regardless, the appeal was originally granted and this seems an unequal reason for rejecting the case.

Exactly.

I don't specifically fault the judges from withdrawing. In fact, I think it's a good idea that they did. It is unfortunate what occured as a result, however.

I don't fault the judges for withdrawing either. Instead, I fault (1) the system for not requiring blind trusts in the first place and (2) the Court for refusing to hear the case with temporary justices.

I honestly don't see this as being all that bad. The plaintiff had, indeed, received his day in court - in fact, as I understand it, he would have received such a chance to tell his story three times before the state's Supreme Court would even consider it (Local Court, Apellate Court, and Superior Court). He has not in any way been denied due process.

Further, Supreme Courts turn down appeals without hearing all the time, mostly due to considering the case unworthy of their time. The reason in this case is unusual, but nor unreasonable.

Agreed.

You seem to be missing the point. Yes, the California Supreme Court was not required to hear this case and the plaintiff has no arguable cause to overturn this dismissal of his appeal.

However, the Court HAD AGREED TO HEAR THE CASE. Presumably, because it raised meritorious issues. The Court then reversed itself because, after the recusals, "they were concerned that a Supreme Court ruling made with a majority of temporary justices wouldn't hold the same weight as an opinion of the permanent court." Does that concern have some merit? Possibly. But the result is that the Court is not hearing a case because the majority of judges are too biased to hear it -- not because the case didn't deserve to be heard. There is a world of difference.

First, I am shocked that judges, especially those that hear civil cases, are not required to put their financial holdings into a blind trust.

For those who don't know, a blind trust is one in which another person/entity manages your investments for you and does not tell you what they are doing with it beyond the income/losses; for instance, they do not tell you which stocks they are buying/selling for you. I learned about the existence of blind trusts because my mother once worked for the man who was Ronald Reagan's blind trustee during his presidency. Blind trusts are used to prevent conflicts of interest.

Second, I am shocked that there is no provision for this in the law. There could be several reasons why the majority of the court could not sit to hear a case. Why is there no provision to extend jurisdiction to another California court, or to have competent judges designated to act as temporary stand-ins, if the full state supreme court cannot be available?

To grant an appeal and then refuse to hear it, and leave the plaintiff with no other recourse? This is ridiculous!

Your sentiments and mine agree as usual.

It does not appear that there is a law that covered this situation. There is no law that requires a majority of regular justices. It appears that the case could have been heard with temporary justices, but the Court decided for policy reasons that they didn't want to do that. I think that decision was wrong.

I also think that the way California deals with judge's investments is wrong. They should have a blind trust.

I agree with a blind trust. I wasn't sure what the circumstances regarding the appointment of temporary justices in in california. I'm sure you west coast lawyerin' folks know more about how that works than a new englander like me.

Is there grounds for a lawsuit? (To sue the state government of California, I mean.)

This is why I believe government officals should not be allowed to own stocks of any kind.
(Not even blind trusts, yes to bonds though)
Let's see 'conflict of interest' then.

And I bet the number of people wanting the jobs will drop greatly.

What ever happened to change of venue?

What ever happened to change of venue?

from a state supreme court? Change of venue to where? Oregon?

This is an unconscionable travesty of justice.

Yes and no. The four who have the oil stock should have requesed (sp?) themselves from the case and let the other three hear it, or defer the case the federal courts.

Wait, seriously? Am I getting this right-that they decided that since they had an interest in the company they'd be biased towards the company so they decided to just rule in favor of the company by dismissing the case?

That's not right, is it?

But if they had heard the case and ruled in favor of the company then what? :rolleyes: No, they did not rule in favor of the company. All they did was say they had a conflict of interest and could not rule which was the right thing to do. There must be some other avenue for this man to go sue. Isn't federal court an option in this case?

Yes and no. The four who have the oil stock should have requesed (sp?) themselves from the case and let the other three hear it, or defer the case the federal courts.

Yes and no.

First, if the justices had their stock in blind trusts, they wouldn't have had to recuse themselves.

Second, the case should have been heard even without the four justices. Temporary justices should have been appointed in the same way that they are when only one or two justices cannot hear a case. The "oh, no, there are too many of us that have to recuse ourselves" ruling was wrong.

Third, you cannot merely defer the case to federal court. Federal court jusrisdicition is a complicated matter, but it appears there is no federal case to be heard here. Unfortunately, the fact that the plaintiff cannot get review in the state supreme court is not grounds for the case to be heard federally.

But if they had heard the case and ruled in favor of the company then what? :rolleyes: No, they did not rule in favor of the company. All they did was say they had a conflict of interest and could not rule which was the right thing to do. There must be some other avenue for this man to go sue. Isn't federal court an option in this case?

No federal court isn't a magic solution to this case. There doesn't appear to be any other avenue for this plaintiff to go sue. His case is now over.

And, although these recusals should be unnecessary because there should be blind trusts, it isn't the recusals that are a travesty. It is the independent decision that, merely because a majority of the court couldn't hear the case, they court would not hear the case at all. As explained in the OP article, the court could have heard the case despite the recusals but chose not to do so. THAT is what shouldn't have happened.

I with hold judgement only because I haven't yet read the ful story, but if this is half as f*cked up as it sounds, then these judges should be fired. Actually since US judges are elected, we can hope they'll just be voted out. I pray for those who suffer under a "justice" system which turns out such BS rulings.:(

I with hold judgement only because I haven't yet read the ful story, but if this is half as f*cked up as it sounds, then these judges should be fired. Actually since US judges are elected, we can hope they'll just be voted out. I pray for those who suffer under a "justice" system which turns out such BS rulings.:(

Not all US Judges are elected; in fact, only a minority are, and usually only at the county/local government level, not the level we're talking about here.

As far as I can see, the Judges did the right thing. Those who recused themselves did the ethical act - they had a stated interest and recused themselves from it. The remaining judges then made an entirely reasonable decision that the case could not go ahead with a minority of actual Supreme Court judges on the bench.

Or to put it another way, the court agreed to hear the case, but changed it's mind later. It's allowed to.

Okay, that was a lot of reading but I 'think' I am now on level ground with the story. Being that I am an English nobody and work off of 'common sense and fair play' rather than knowledge of law, there is undoubtedly going to be some parts of my opinion which do not hold water.

However, now that disclaimer is out the way... *rolls up sleeves*

It seems to me that this case has worked out favorably for the judges who decided to not involve themselves. The fact that temporary judges could have been used, but were not, reeks of some form of an injustice for those who were promised a hearing. Thus, justice has not been served. (I hope you follow my logic, because I am really trying hard not to over-complicate things).
I do not even know where blame should be directed, but I would start with whoever decided that temporary judges or justices (whatever you call them) could not be used.
If someone was promised an appeal by the courts, then they should have it...regardless of the outcome.
It's like 'grandad' promising a kid that she can have candy, but due to a bizarre circumstance, the only candy in the store has been withdrawn from the shelf. More candy could be got from the storage room, but for some reason Grandad decides that the promise didnt include THAT candy. Thus the kid can have no candy and she has learned that it is okay for promises made by someone she should be able to trust to be broken.

Okay, the stupid english persons opinion and candy story is over. :p

The candy story's over, and you didn't give me any? No fair!

The candy story's over, and you didn't give me any? No fair!
If the kid doesn't get any, neither do you. :D
(After re-reading that post, I am convinced I should never post after drinking red bull)

The Califorinia Supreme Court is denying review of an appeal that they had originally agreed to hear because four of the seven justices on the Court have investments in the oil companies that may be at issue.



This is an unconscionable travesty of justice. Justices should be required to put their stock holdings into a blind trust, so this sort of thing cannot happen.

I disagree. It is not like we are dealing with a case where there was no court of first instance or no appeal. The intermediate appeal court heard the case as did the court of first instance. The only court that could have heard the case yet did not choose to do so was the Supreme Court.

Typically, litigants do not have a right to have their case heard before a Supreme Court. Unless a Federal due process or other requirement them to do so or the governing appellate procedure requires them to grant certiorari (agree to hear the case), a Supreme Court can use its discretion to grant cert.

Cases are not granted cert all of the time for a nearly infinite number of reasons. Each of these cert denied cases are not a travesty of justice.

Judges typically must recuse themselves from hearing a case if they have a financial conflict of interest. I see nothing wrong with this. If occassionally issues arise stemming from this requirement that result in a mere denial of cert, this is really no big deal.