Not everyone thinks West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Larry Starcher is capable of straddling the line between objectivity and opinion.

Every journalist has been there. An issue effects you, but you have to find a way to keep your personal views from making their way into the story. Some can do it, some can't. It only takes one word to turn an article into a column.

When a journalist calls dozens gunned down senselessly at Virginia Tech "a tragedy," he or she just compromised themselves. No one will argue it's a tragedy, but it's not their business to decide. Recite the facts, then let the reader or listener decide if it is tragic.

The line is that easy to cross, not only for journalists, but judges and justices. Starcher's veiled shot at an attorney's Pakistani heritage having something to do with why a company hired her to represent it in a discrimination claim brought by a Pakistani former employee, honestly, was OK with me.

He inquired about her heritage, then stated, "That's what I thought."

When I heard about it, I didn't really blink an eye. Maybe Starcher knew someone named Altaf who was Pakistani, so he figured Shareeza Altaf was, too. It didn't matter if that's not what he meant.

Taken literally, as words in a report should be taken, nothing was wrong with it.

But he crossed the line in his response to Colgan's motion for recusal, calling Altaf "window dressing" and an "argument prop."

Later, he claimed he could be fair because he does not have a financial interest in the case.

Oh, OK. All is forgiven, I guess. Nevermind that everything an elected official does concerns, in some way, his or her financial interests. It takes money to get re-elected.

Starcher fell off the fence, now hopefully he'll step away from the bench. It's only one case.

But I guess it all depends on how much Starcher wants Colgan to pay for bringing its "argument prop" along. And maybe this incident, one in a long line, will turn voters sour on Starcher if he runs again next year.

If not, there's always newspaper work. Starcher would probably have to stick to the editorial page, though.