Friday, April 25, 2008

Co-dependent ethics

April 25, 2008
Starcher vows to remain seated in Massey case
Justice says he'll recuse self only if Benjamin does
By Tom Searls
Staff writer
State Supreme Court Justice Larry Starcher declined to step aside in a $240 million case involving Massey Energy and Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Thursday, saying he would only consider such a move if Justice Brent Benjamin does also.

"I will step aside following the very moment that [Benjamin] does so, should he make that decision," Starcher wrote.

WTF?! So Starcher's ethics are dependent upon the ethics of someone else? HEY! Look here you stupid fuck; you do what's right regardlesss of what anyone else does.
So, by Judge Starcher's ethics, ass long as someone else is robbing banks, it's ok for me to rob banks. When THEY decide to quit robbing banks, then I will quit robbing banks.
Yes folks, this is a WV supreme court judge talking. No wonder the rest of the world looks so favorably upon our fair state.

Should it surprise anyone that our country is so devoid of moral values and righteous ethics?


MountainLaurel said...

Actually, I agree with this one. Starcher hates Blankenshit with an capital H. Benjamin was put in there and owes his job to BS. If Starcher recuses himself and Benjamin doesn't, then it's stacked even more in BS's favor. If both recuse themselves, it's at least more even. If neither recuses himself, then it's still more even with one hating and one loving BS. Strategically, I think this is the right way for him to put his ethics into practice.

SagaciousHillbilly said...

Then you believe in situational ethics.
I guess I standby a more strident and moralistic set of ethics.
As much as I'd like to see Blankenship, Benjamin and a few other corp-whores from this state rot in hell, I still believe that if Starcher thinks it is proper for him to recuse himself because he is unduly prejudiced in this case he is obligated to recuse himself no matter what the peripheral circumstances.

MountainLaurel said...

I agree in principle. However, I've thought about this a good bit, and I'd call it "practical ethics" instead of "situational." If Starcher's commitment is to make sure that the judiciary is as balanced as it could be, which I would hope would be the goal of any judge, then NOT to recuse himself would be a travesty, at least according to this thinking.

I'll admit a strong anti-BS bias, which of course is why I refer to him as BS. :-)