Opinion ID: 1288202
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: disqualification and due process

Text: In footnote 16 of the Dissenting opinion, reference is made to the motions filed by the Appellees seeking my disqualification from this caseespecially the last such motion filed by Appellees. [11] Specifically, the Dissenting opinion contends that both actual and apparent conflicts can have due process implications on the outcome of cases affected by such conflicts and [i]t is now clear, especially from the last motion for disqualification... that there are now [such] due process implications in this case. Dissenting Op., at 284 (emphasis added). The Dissenting opinion provides no legal analysis for this contention. Nor does the Dissenting opinion, or the Appellees herein, claim any actual bias or prejudice on my part in this case. [12] Indeed, neither the Dissenting opinion nor the Appellees herein point to any actual conduct or activity on my part which could be termed improper. [13] Rather both the Dissenting opinion and the Appellees focus on appearancessome generated by the media, some generated by a recused member of this Court with a history of verbal discourtesies toward Appellant Massey, and some generated herein by the Appellees, themselves. By its inclusion of Footnote 16, one must conclude that the Dissenting opinion advocates that the concept of appearance-driven judging should bring about a different substantive outcome in this matter. That is disappointing. Justice should not be determined more by the popularity, or lack thereof, of a given litigant or a given result than by the rule of law. Rather, justice must always emphasize the importance and definiteness of the law in the resolution of disputes. In that manner, my participation herein was wholly consistent with due process. [14] Because of the reference to the disqualification issue in Justice Albright's Dissenting opinion, I feel obligated to comment on this matter of apparent conflict.