COMMENDABLY, state Supreme Court Justices Elliott "Spike" Maynard and Larry Starcher have taken steps to remove suspicion of slanted justice in West Virginia's highest court.

First Maynard, and now Starcher, have removed themselves from hearing controversial cases involving Massey Energy Co.

Maynard did so because snapshots showed him vacationing on the Mediterranean Riviera with Massey's president while a Massey case was before the court.

Starcher followed suit Friday because he once blurted in a television interview that Massey's chief is "stupid" and a "clown" - and because he told the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association that the coal company president "purchased a seat on our Supreme Court."

Starcher's latter allegation refers to more than $3.5 million which the Massey CEO spent in 2004 to defeat former Justice Warren McGraw, replacing him with Republican Charleston lawyer Brent Benjamin.

Now, Benjamin remains the only Massey-connected justice still presiding over Massey cases. Clearly, for the sake of impartiality, he should follow the honorable example of Maynard and Starcher, recusing himself from all Massey cases. Replacing all three would give the high court five neutral barristers, unmarked by personal involvements with the giant coal firm. Public belief in the court's impartiality would be bolstered.

In fact, Starcher declared Friday: "I am stepping aside, hoping that Justice Benjamin does the same, so we can end the public controversy about the case and restore confidence in our court by having five totally impartial justices hear the appeal."

In his court filing, Starcher said the amount poured into Benjamin's 2004 campaign actually was $4 million - a sum so huge that a national novelist based a fiction book on it.

"I believe John Grisham got it right when he said that he simply had to read The Charleston Gazette to get an idea for his next novel," the justice wrote. "Just think about it - $4 million! I know hardly a soul who could believe that a justice who benefited to this extent from a litigant could rule fairly on cases involving that litigant or his companies."

Wednesday, a petition to the Supreme Court asked Benjamin to remove himself because the Massey chief sank a "staggering and unprecedented amount of money" into his 2004 campaign - the most ever spent by a non-candidate "to affect a state court judicial election in the history of the United States." Such a sum creates a public impression that Massey has an "inside track" with Benjamin in the Supreme Court, the petition said.

State court rules require judges to recuse themselves from any cases in which their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

We hope that Justice Benjamin joins Justice Maynard and Justice Starcher in restoring full neutrality in West Virginia's highest court.

First Maynard, and now Starcher, have removed themselves from hearing controversial cases involving Massey Energy Co.

Maynard did so because snapshots showed him vacationing on the Mediterranean Riviera with Massey's president while a Massey case was before the court.

Starcher followed suit Friday because he once blurted in a television interview that Massey's chief is "stupid" and a "clown" - and because he told the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association that the coal company president "purchased a seat on our Supreme Court."

Starcher's latter allegation refers to more than $3.5 million which the Massey CEO spent in 2004 to defeat former Justice Warren McGraw, replacing him with Republican Charleston lawyer Brent Benjamin.

Now, Benjamin remains the only Massey-connected justice still presiding over Massey cases. Clearly, for the sake of impartiality, he should follow the honorable example of Maynard and Starcher, recusing himself from all Massey cases. Replacing all three would give the high court five neutral barristers, unmarked by personal involvements with the giant coal firm. Public belief in the court's impartiality would be bolstered.

In fact, Starcher declared Friday: "I am stepping aside, hoping that Justice Benjamin does the same, so we can end the public controversy about the case and restore confidence in our court by having five totally impartial justices hear the appeal."

In his court filing, Starcher said the amount poured into Benjamin's 2004 campaign actually was $4 million - a sum so huge that a national novelist based a fiction book on it.

"I believe John Grisham got it right when he said that he simply had to read The Charleston Gazette to get an idea for his next novel," the justice wrote. "Just think about it - $4 million! I know hardly a soul who could believe that a justice who benefited to this extent from a litigant could rule fairly on cases involving that litigant or his companies."

Wednesday, a petition to the Supreme Court asked Benjamin to remove himself because the Massey chief sank a "staggering and unprecedented amount of money" into his 2004 campaign - the most ever spent by a non-candidate "to affect a state court judicial election in the history of the United States." Such a sum creates a public impression that Massey has an "inside track" with Benjamin in the Supreme Court, the petition said.

State court rules require judges to recuse themselves from any cases in which their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

We hope that Justice Benjamin joins Justice Maynard and Justice Starcher in restoring full neutrality in West Virginia's highest court.