The court also fined the newspaper 25,000 Singapore dollars ($16,400).

Justice Tay Yong Kwang ruled Tuesday against the newspaper and two of its editors, three weeks after Attorney General Walter Woon argued the editorials published in June and July questioned the judiciary's independence from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and the ruling People's Action Party. Not meting out punishment in this case would undermine the country's rule of law, the court said.

The letter to the editor was written by Chee Soon Juan, head of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party.

The editorials and the letter "contained insinuations of bias, lack of impartiality and lack of independence and implied that the judiciary is subservient to Mr. Lee and/or the PAP and is a tool for silencing political dissent," Tay wrote in the ruling.

"There can be no doubt that allegations of the nature mentioned above would immediately cast doubts on the judiciary in Singapore and undermine public confidence."

The newspaper's lawyer, Philip Jeyaretnam, was not immediately available for comment. The Wall Street Journal is published by Dow Jones & Co., a part of News Corp.

Singapore's leaders have sued journalists and political opponents several times in past years for alleged defamation. They have won lawsuits and damages against Bloomberg, the Economist and the International Herald Tribune.

Human Rights Watch called on Singapore last month to stop using defamation lawsuits to stifle criticism and bankrupt opposition politicians, citing the High Court's decision in October to order Chee and his party to pay $416,000 to Lee and his father, Lee Kuan Yew, in damages stemming from a 2006 defamation case.

Government leaders justify suing political opponents, saying it is necessary to defend their personal and professional reputations since it bears on their ability to govern properly and command respect from Singaporeans.

Jarek Molski has been labeled a "vexatious litigant" by federal courts in California because he has filed roughly 400 lawsuits alleging that restaurants and other businesses are in violation of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. Molski is paralyzed from the chest down and uses a wheelchair.

The justices rejected his case without comment.

Molski frequently complains about the lack of handicapped van parking, counters that are too high, narrow doorways and grab-bars installed too high or low in bathrooms. In addition, he often says he was injured in the course of his visit. Targeted business owners often have settled out of court rather than pay attorneys and take the time to fight the lawsuits.

A federal judge in Los Angeles described the lawsuits as extortion. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling that Molski was an abusive litigant, although it noted that many of the establishments he sued probably were violating federal law.

"On the other hand, the district court had ample basis to conclude that Molski trumped up his claims of injury," the appeals court said.

The case is Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 08-38.

The justices typically avoid cases about judicial ethics, but they agreed to review the actions of a West Virginia Supreme Court justice whose vote overturned a $50 million verdict against a company that is run by the most generous backer of his election.

The high court's decision comes amid growing concern over the role of money in electing state judges. Campaign spending on state supreme court elections rose by 25 percent to nearly $20 million from 2006 to 2008, a national justice reform group said.

Don Blankenship, the chief executive of Massey Energy Co., spent more than $3 million to help elect Justice Brent Benjamin to the West Virginia high court. Benjamin twice was part of 3-2 majorities that threw out a verdict in favor of Harman Mining Co. in its coal contract dispute with Massey.

Harman said Benjamin's participation in the case created an appearance of bias strong enough to violate its constitutional rights.

The American Bar Assocation and other legal ethics groups have taken Harman's side.

In earlier cases, the Supreme Court has said that judges must avoid even the appearance of bias.

Benjamin repeatedly rejected calls to recuse himself from the case when it was before the state high court. He has since said that he fairly judged the dispute.

Benjamin issued a lengthy defense of his actions, pointing out that he had no financial interest in the outcome of the case and the campaign money went to an independent group, not his campaign. He had no comment Friday after the court accepted the case for review.

Massey vice president and general counsel Shane Harvey said, "We are confident that the Harman case was properly decided by the West Virginia Supreme Court."

David Fawcett, a Pittsburgh attorney who represents Harman and its founder, Hugh Caperton, said, "The question at issue here is central to the future of our court system." Former Solicitor General Theodore Olson will argue the case for Caperton at the Supreme Court, probably in March or April.

Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has not commented on the West Virginia dispute, but she has bemoaned the role of money in state judicial elections.

"There is too much special interest money and influence in state court elections," O'Connor said recently. "It endangers the public's faith in the justice system. If courts are going to stay impartial, leaders in every state need to get moving on reforms."

Former Colorado Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Love Kourlis, an advocate for ending partisan election of judges, said the case may get "people to pay attention to the problems partisan fundraising creates." Kourlis is executive director of the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver, which provided the figures on spending in judicial elections.

The Supreme Court case stems from a jury verdict in 2002 that concluded Richmond, Va.-based Massey hijacked a coal supply contract from Harman, plunging both it and Caperton into bankruptcy.

Massey contended Harman filed for bankruptcy because of mounting losses at a mining facility and other problems that had nothing to do with Massey.

The case is Caperton v. Massey, 08-22.

In the end, experts say, it could be the courts or even the Senate that speaks the loudest on Minnesota's unsettled Senate race.

While the race is headed for an automatic recount, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman and Democratic challenger Al Franken have other options to alter the outcome.

The recount is due to start once results are made official Nov. 18, and it could take weeks. Coleman clung to a 342-vote lead, out of nearly 2.9 million votes cast, as election officials around the state double-checked their reports.

After a recount, the candidates or any eligible voter can head to court to challenge how the election was conducted or the votes were tallied. The Minnesota law spelling out the contest raises the possibility of Senate involvement.

"I don't think there is any possibility it will be simply a recount," said Hamline University law professor Joseph Daly. "It is destined for the courthouse and ultimately it is destined for the United States Senate based on this law. There's too much at stake. There's too much vitriol."

Minnesota's race is one of three up in the air nationwide. Races in Georgia and Alaska are also unresolved. All three involve Republican incumbents in a year that has seen Democrats gain five seats already.

Franken went on Minnesota Public Radio to explain why he won't waive the recount, as Coleman said he would do if he was in the same position.

"This is the closest race in Minnesota history, the closest Senate race and the closest race anywhere in the country. This is just part of the process to make sure every vote is counted," Franken said, adding, "Candidates don't get to decide when an election's over — voters do."

Coleman laid low Thursday.

In percentage terms, Minnesota's race will go down as the closest Senate election prior to a recount. In 1974, a New Hampshire race came down to 355 votes out of 200,000 cast.

The loser in that race, the Democratic candidate, overtook the Election Day victor by 10 votes in a recount. But more maneuvering and court challenges overturned that result, and the state's Republican governor awarded the election certificate to his party's nominee.

The case ultimately wound up before the Senate, where Democrats held a large majority. But a standoff dragged on until August, when the Senate voted to declare the seat open. A special election was held the next month, and record-breaking turnout helped Democrat John Durkin prevail.