The politics of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has more plot twists than ‘‘As the World Turns,’’ and a 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court just kinked it even further.

The state’s highest court, with employer-hostile decisions and invention of novel causes of aggrievement, added to West Virginia’s reputation as a ‘‘judicial hellhole’’ where corporations should not risk their assets.

This perception harmed West Virginia’s ability to attract investment, and many players set about trying to change the makeup of the state Supreme Court.

One of those players was Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship, who poured $3 million into an independent campaign to defeat one of the worst Robin Hoods of the court - former Justice Warren McGraw.

McGraw was defeated in that election by now-Chief Justice Brent Benjamin.

But Massey had cases before the court, and Justice Benjamin refused to recuse himself - voting to throw out a $50 million jury verdict against Massey.

The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 against Benjamin on Monday. The majority ruled that the size of Massey’s independent campaign created ‘‘a serious, objective risk’’ that Benjamin would be biased in Massey cases, and thereby violated the constitutional rights of the plaintiff’s corporation.

‘‘Not every campaign contribution by a litigant or attorney creates a probability of bias that requires a judge’s recusal, wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy for the majority, ‘‘but this is an exceptional case.’’

Exceptional because of the size of the independent campaign.

How West Virginians are to function under this ruling is a mystery, as U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts noted in dissent.

Monday’s ruling ‘‘will inevitably lead to an increase in allegations that judges are biased, however groundless those charges may be,’’ he wrote.

Exactly. West Virginians who contribute to judicial campaigns - or who fund effective independent campaigns to change the makeup of the state Supreme Court - will establish grounds for the recusal of the candidates they support.

The resulting litigation will be endless. And expensive, too, creating a further disincentive for defendant corporations to risk their assets in West Virginia.

Poor West Virginians. The U.S. Supreme Court decided that if they spend enough to support an effective effort to affect their high court - how much money automatically creates bias could be litigated each time - anyone who is elected will be presumed guilty of bias if he or she hears cases.

West Virginians may support judicial candidates who can vastly affect their lives only if do so ineffectively.

Is that constitutional?