Justice recused is sometimes justice denied

A southern California man thought he had a case against his former employer for his exposure to chemicals he says caused his diabetes and other problems. He'll never know, because the state Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal of a lower court ruling against him,.

The court didn't take up the case because four of the seven justices recused themselves, based on the fact that they all hold oil company stocks, which created a conflict of interest. So Braxton Berkley is out of luck.

The three remaining justices could have ruled in the case, with the help of temporary justices, but decided against that course for fear that any subsequent ruling would lack the weight of a full court hearing. Another possibility -- having the judges put their stock holdings in a blind trust -- was ruled out by the state's Administrative Office of the Courts, on the grounds that the justices have to take an active role in managing their portfolios. That's bogus. What are blind trusts for, if not cases such as this one?