Comments on: Campaign cash finds its way to the courtroom

By: borisjimbo

borisjimbo — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:36:27 +0000

Just keep in mind which wing of politics supported allowing judges who accepted large campaign sums from likely litigants to sit on cases involving them; it’s the Caperton v. Massey Energy Supreme Court decision from just a few years ago.

By: bitbyt

bitbyt — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 05:49:54 +0000

SayHey, judges should be elected…but without millions of dollars invested by special interests in their campaigns to assure ‘fair’ judgment for one side only. There should be no politicians, only be representatives of the people reflecting the concerns of their constituents. That lack of representation is the core problem along with corruption, something that must be rectified regardless of your political position.

By: JBltn

JBltn — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 02:06:04 +0000

TThere has always been a legal system ‘outcome bias’ in favor of the rich and powerful and that is/was their ability to employ ‘better’ and more attorneys than their opponent be it a local prosecutor or opposing attorney.

With the amount of dollar$ being spent by secret groups to oppose a judgeship candidate or elect their candidate the systemic bias now increases geometrically. As we have seen the conservative right continue to rant and rave about ‘librul activist judges’ while in fact most Federal Appeals Court districts have more conservative appointees than not. Now we have a SCOTUS dominated by Activist Conservative judges willing and determined to roll back consumer protections, ignore years of precedent, issuing ruling favoring industry and wealthy causes; the recent and egregious decision on Citizens United vs. FEC ignoring over 150 years of precedents to rule against the FEC.

Frankly I’m not optimistic about meaningful reform with the Legislative and Executive branches tied in contentious ideological conflict and scoring political points without regard for public policy.

IMHO, the most effective methods to create change would be to demand abolishing the Electoral College and electing a POTUS by a simple majority. The next change would be voters demanding that the Senate abandon self imposed and outmoded procedural rules and return to legislation pass by a simple majority vote and no member having the singular right to place holds on any bill before the body nor any individual or party allowed to block any bill from consideration by the Senate.

All the above must be demanded by voters until received; without that it will remain business as usual. AND don’t ever attempt to say that both parties are equally to blame – THEY ARE NOT and public records show that one party uses obstructionist tactics far more than the other!

By: AlkalineState

AlkalineState — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:27:31 +0000

Just because a judge receives money from a certain group of attorneys say, or a certain ‘misunderstood individual’….. does not mean the judge’s ruling would be swayed by that money. Justice is blind. All parties would get a fair trial. And the more money the judge gets…. the more fair the trial gets

This is like Honduras… but with Jon Corzine on hand. Good times.

By: OFA7

OFA7 — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:16:55 +0000

So how is our political system to respond to this threat if it is already bought and paid for?

By: rcd1160

rcd1160 — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 21:35:06 +0000

It cannot be fixed. Influential individuals and institutions will always be corrupted by financial gain. No system allows for the complete separation of wealth from control.
A fair and just legal system is just as far-fetched as as an ideal Democracy.
Anarchy and revolution resulting in creating new forms of Governments and controls has had no real results.
Over the centuries no such success has been achieved and therefore no expectation of a non corrupt system is to be expected.

By: SayHey

SayHey — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 21:24:09 +0000

Let’s assume judges are not going to be elected, and therefore no campaign contributions. Would it really make a difference? In order to be appointed, instead of elected, one needs very significant ties to politicians – just like any political position. I am not so sure that gives us a better result.

By: AldoHux_iv

AldoHux_iv — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 21:19:25 +0000

Totally unacceptable form of running any branch of government, we need to reform campaign financing/limits and ultimately how judges and politicians appeal to the public in order to get elected– this is not democracy.

By: txgadfly

txgadfly — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:24:50 +0000

The USA needs a College of Cardinals like a hole in the head. But we have one anyway, with the Supreme Court.

Since when did our courts have anything whatever to do with justice? They are about the ultimate in individual, virtually unchecked raw power, wielded with impunity from prince-for-life positions. They are as undemocratic as the House of Lords. American life peers.

Any American who has been victimized by American courts, and that is almost all Americans who have stood before a Judge, knows the feeling of raw power ripping down from Olympian heights. Few feel well treated. And neither the Courts not the Administration nor the Congress care. Any move to make these Princes for Life more accountable to the people they rule is a step in the right direction.

It would be difficult to make the case that Congress is any more corrupt than the Courts.

Just another run-away part of Government, distant, non-responsive and absolute.

By: fred5407

fred5407 — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:17:53 +0000

Just more of the Greed Plague, sweeping the world and the grasp for power that has taken over the country. In my mind it has its roots in Godless people who think they are Gods and that they are going to live forever. (ala-Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.)