It's so funny as these guys don silly black robes to give added sanctity to their evisceration of Democracy. I hope the absurdity is at least not lost on them.
6
We have government of the rich, by, the rich, and for the rich. Why shouldn't judges be allowed to get their share of the loot, too? We have a government for sale, and that seems to include judicial decisions as well, at least in some states. The Supremes are supposedly above all that and can be impartial, but are they and can they be?
3
We could use the added revenue to the government coffers, but unfortunately the money would probably be wasted on more wars for profit, subsidizing drilling the national parks full of dirty fracking holes, and further increasing the tax expenditures (entitlements) to the wealthy.
On the other hand, why not conduct public lotteries instead of elections. Put all qualified candidates names into a hat, and pick out the winners. Surely the average person would have more credibility than the purchased office holders.
On the other hand, why not conduct public lotteries instead of elections. Put all qualified candidates names into a hat, and pick out the winners. Surely the average person would have more credibility than the purchased office holders.
13
LW-Y "Legalized Extortion" cuts both ways: to lawyers, it's contribute or be subject to a judge's (wrongful) wrath; to judges, it's beg, insinuating (wrongful) preferential treatment or the "campaign" money will flow elsewhere.
Scalia's "spending as free speech and education." Speech (and writing) is obviously limited in many ways. Defamation, libel, slander, fraud, false advertizing (and so on) limit the content, as do various hate speech laws. (Truth is a defense.)
"Clear and present danger" constraints limit the occasions of speech, as do various nuisance regulations--loudspeakers as 3:00 am--shouting "Lies" during church services (and the like). There are also limits to what can be said (or shown) to audiences--children for example--as well as mobs ready to riot.
Generally one person's right to speak, means everyone else's duty not to interfere--to put up with it--which may be intolerable.
"Spending as speaking" is like "decibels as speaking". The right to speak is not the right to speak at deafening levels.
As for education--it depends on whether speakers are constrained by logic--the rules of evidence--the informal version of evidence law. "Academic Freedom" is educational precisely because "the academy" institutionalizes such rules of evidence. Advertizing, proselytizing and propagandizing recognize no such constraints--it's simply pushing ideas and ideologies as product regardless of logic. Illogical persuasion and indoctrination are not education.
Scalia's "spending as free speech and education." Speech (and writing) is obviously limited in many ways. Defamation, libel, slander, fraud, false advertizing (and so on) limit the content, as do various hate speech laws. (Truth is a defense.)
"Clear and present danger" constraints limit the occasions of speech, as do various nuisance regulations--loudspeakers as 3:00 am--shouting "Lies" during church services (and the like). There are also limits to what can be said (or shown) to audiences--children for example--as well as mobs ready to riot.
Generally one person's right to speak, means everyone else's duty not to interfere--to put up with it--which may be intolerable.
"Spending as speaking" is like "decibels as speaking". The right to speak is not the right to speak at deafening levels.
As for education--it depends on whether speakers are constrained by logic--the rules of evidence--the informal version of evidence law. "Academic Freedom" is educational precisely because "the academy" institutionalizes such rules of evidence. Advertizing, proselytizing and propagandizing recognize no such constraints--it's simply pushing ideas and ideologies as product regardless of logic. Illogical persuasion and indoctrination are not education.
16
Got some news for the chief justice.
If you run in an election, you are a politician. That includes candidates for any and every elected court.
As to judges being impartial and neutral arbiters, well that is just nonsense. No human being is or is capable of being impartial. Judges are arbitrators of a system designed by lawyers to serve lawyers, to serve itself.
Justice is always someone's idea of justice and if anyone wants proof of the fact that bias, political belief, religious belief and narrow experience are in fact what guides judges in their decisions one need only look to the U.S. Supreme Court: Prima facie example? Scalia.
If you run in an election, you are a politician. That includes candidates for any and every elected court.
As to judges being impartial and neutral arbiters, well that is just nonsense. No human being is or is capable of being impartial. Judges are arbitrators of a system designed by lawyers to serve lawyers, to serve itself.
Justice is always someone's idea of justice and if anyone wants proof of the fact that bias, political belief, religious belief and narrow experience are in fact what guides judges in their decisions one need only look to the U.S. Supreme Court: Prima facie example? Scalia.
43
So the law makers are for sale, but those who administer those sleazy laws bought and paid or should not be. How can we trust any of it.
5
Even a tiny hiccup is cause for celebration.
2
Funny lady, Gail When I see her with a scythe I'll know she's serious about justice.
1
The Koch brothers and Sheldon are buying elections so why not let them buy judges. At least, people will stop wondering!
11
Dear Judge Scalia, If the Founding Fathers. when writing the Constitution, meant free speech included bribery then they would have said so. To me people sucking up to those with money to buy consideration on matters important to them is bribery. Perhaps you and the other three judicial brains should ponder the intent of the founders as it relates to the reality of today's world.
Dear former justice O'Conner, How could you possibly have thought leaving the Supreme Court was a swell idea?
Dear former justice O'Conner, How could you possibly have thought leaving the Supreme Court was a swell idea?
23
I'll tell you what's "wildly disproportionate": Nino Scalia's ego, when measured against his jurisprudence. He is an ever-looser cannon rolling around the deck of an increasingly politicized SCOTUS.
28
Thank God Roberts has a gargantuan ego! He and his judicial brethren can continue sitting high above the rest and bless us with their pearls of wisdom.
6
If a country grants you the title "supreme" they have pretty much made sure that you will be delusional even if you are trafficking in the buying and selling of cheap human commodities like politicians and judicial sorts. By now you should know that political ideologies, like those that are religious and cultural like to be led by humans endowed with what I call ultimate words, like infallible, eminent, and yes, supreme, a door to an infinite universe of delusions.
3
The US has achieved the perfection of corruption--and it's all legal.
20
In this decision--as well as its recent decision on expanding but not tossing out limits on Congressional campaign expenditures, SCOTUS is at least allowing some minimal regulation of the first amendment in campaign expenditures.
That's the good news. The bad news, however is that SCOTUS has drawn a line in the sand a couple of hundred feet from shore. And surf's up.
That's the good news. The bad news, however is that SCOTUS has drawn a line in the sand a couple of hundred feet from shore. And surf's up.
5
Ms. Collins:
whoa, nellie...
or some other more-appropriate creature.
hold those presses,
uh,
electrons transmitting the "news".
did Chief Justice Roberts actually state that the difference is that "judges are not politicians"?
hello !!
while judges are clearly not-to-be-confused with "legislators"
or "executive-branchers",
if they are elected-by-the-people,
they are,
in fact,
by definition:
"politicians"
'any individual elected to hold public office'
gee, maybe that is the secret here: these are NOT "public" offices?
who knew
either way, our current rendition of SCOTUS, is truly,
embarrassingly,
as completely dysfunctional,
perhaps even more-so,
as the rest of the lot.
somewhere out here in the universe-of-all,
there must be a better way.
maybe?
8
It's important to remember - in order to put things like this in context - that we no longer live in a democracy. I don't what you'd call the system we have. An oligarchy is close enough, but it certainly is not a democracy.
20
In light of Citizens United, this decision has about the same impact as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
15
Conservatives, even those on the SCOTUS, seem to believe that as long as everyone is corrupt then the system is fair.
25
there is some news that is promising: Hillary is still beating all her opponents. That means Justice Scalia will be replaced--maybe by Mr. Obama--and the Court will return from the reactionary weeds to the modest center. Hope is all that's left in the ballot box.
18
Elected judges: an oxymoron
11
It isn’t so much the money being poured into campaigns that bothers me. It’s what the bulk of that money is spent on – TV ads. Not only do these ads contribute heavily to the dumbing down of elections, they are often highly deceptive.
I don’t expect TV stations to voluntarily put significant restrictions on the number of ads they run (unless there’s some massive public outcry), but it is possible that the mess further complicated by Citizens United and the Roberts Court will one day be self-correcting. Younger viewers have been tuning out leaving the 55 and older crowd as the primary ad viewers, but this too shall pass. There will come a day, not nearly soon enough, when campaigns will be confined to spending the bulk of their money on online ads that are far less expensive to produce and run.
Maybe I’m a bit too hopeful in my outlook, but since there’s always a hint of optimism in Gail’s columns I just thought I’d come up with some of my own.
I don’t expect TV stations to voluntarily put significant restrictions on the number of ads they run (unless there’s some massive public outcry), but it is possible that the mess further complicated by Citizens United and the Roberts Court will one day be self-correcting. Younger viewers have been tuning out leaving the 55 and older crowd as the primary ad viewers, but this too shall pass. There will come a day, not nearly soon enough, when campaigns will be confined to spending the bulk of their money on online ads that are far less expensive to produce and run.
Maybe I’m a bit too hopeful in my outlook, but since there’s always a hint of optimism in Gail’s columns I just thought I’d come up with some of my own.
8
When the highest court in the land can't tell difference between:
Money and speech
Corporations and people
A country and a church....
Then it's fair to say that the actual speechless human citizens of that American country need to abandon all hope when they enter the right-wing circles of hellish logic of the Supreme Court.
Welcome to Dante's Judicial Inferno....abandon all hope.
Money and speech
Corporations and people
A country and a church....
Then it's fair to say that the actual speechless human citizens of that American country need to abandon all hope when they enter the right-wing circles of hellish logic of the Supreme Court.
Welcome to Dante's Judicial Inferno....abandon all hope.
75
Hey, there is a lot worse corruption in other countries - as we are often fond of pointing out. That makes our own level okay, right?
3
"Antonin Scalia, what would we do without Scalia?"
I for one would like to find out. I suspect we would do quite a lot better "without Scalia".
I for one would like to find out. I suspect we would do quite a lot better "without Scalia".
7
The "politicization" of judges that ex-justice O'Connor bemoans is being touted by Republican presidential candidates as a winning strategy to promote the reactionary agenda they all seem to love. Just appoint more right-wing justices, they say, on all the courts where you can do this.
And we continue to wonder how the US got to be such a mess.
And we continue to wonder how the US got to be such a mess.
3
Oh Gail, you/ve done it again...made my despondence over the American "way" even deeper than it was already.
It is even remotely true what you ascribe as Robert's comments? Hard to believe!
It is even remotely true what you ascribe as Robert's comments? Hard to believe!
2
"...Roberts ... appears to feel that there’s no need whatsoever for the public to believe that candidates for, say, president of the United States, aren’t being swayed by rich donors."
Of course not: Rich donors are the job creators. Every dollar by which their taxes are cut sends ten dollars (at least) trickling down to the 47% who depend on government handouts. So it is right and proper that the job creators influence politicians to cut their taxes, not to mention cutting regulations.
That is why everything was great under the last Bush and so quickly went bad when a Democrat was elected to follow him.
Of course not: Rich donors are the job creators. Every dollar by which their taxes are cut sends ten dollars (at least) trickling down to the 47% who depend on government handouts. So it is right and proper that the job creators influence politicians to cut their taxes, not to mention cutting regulations.
That is why everything was great under the last Bush and so quickly went bad when a Democrat was elected to follow him.
1
It is a sad comment on our times that I can't be sure whether your comment is satiric or serious.
2
Nice.
It doesn't take much to make a reformer happy these days. Throw them a scrap every now and then to shut them up. I haven't figured out exactly what scrap they got, but if it makes them feel better..........
That's the good thing about low expectations. We're used to that now thanks to guys like Boehner and McConnell.
That's the good thing about low expectations. We're used to that now thanks to guys like Boehner and McConnell.
2
"You could provide public financing, like several states did with a matching fund system that the court ruled unconstitutional in 2011."
I wondered, why are publicly funded elections unconstitutional? Some of the more advanced democratic countries do this, why can't we?
Silly me, I had wonderful teachers and professors in my public education (K-university degree) in the B.R. years (before the Reagan presidency and rise of the far right). Teachers taught us what democracy is, how difficult a struggle it is to achieve for everyday people, & what it is not (totalitarianism, authoritarianism, fascism). In civics we learned that rich that people (and foreign gvts) allowed to buy politicians and elections with their money was anti-democratic and resulted in influence peddling, unfair advantage for the rich against everyone else, and invited corruption. Publicly funded elections was a partial solution to this problem.
So I tracked the 2011 Supreme Court case Gail referred to (McComish v. Bennett). In a 5-4 decision, the judges ruled against AZ's Clean Elections act that provided for publicly funded elections. Their argument:
"restriction[s] on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression." Bottom line: “restrict[ing] the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others”—is “wholly foreign to the First Amendment."
Want more? Vote Republican
I wondered, why are publicly funded elections unconstitutional? Some of the more advanced democratic countries do this, why can't we?
Silly me, I had wonderful teachers and professors in my public education (K-university degree) in the B.R. years (before the Reagan presidency and rise of the far right). Teachers taught us what democracy is, how difficult a struggle it is to achieve for everyday people, & what it is not (totalitarianism, authoritarianism, fascism). In civics we learned that rich that people (and foreign gvts) allowed to buy politicians and elections with their money was anti-democratic and resulted in influence peddling, unfair advantage for the rich against everyone else, and invited corruption. Publicly funded elections was a partial solution to this problem.
So I tracked the 2011 Supreme Court case Gail referred to (McComish v. Bennett). In a 5-4 decision, the judges ruled against AZ's Clean Elections act that provided for publicly funded elections. Their argument:
"restriction[s] on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression." Bottom line: “restrict[ing] the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others”—is “wholly foreign to the First Amendment."
Want more? Vote Republican
5
Scalia is like the Penguin in the Batman cartoons--a villain on our Supreme Court!
Thomas? We all forget about his vetting process--Anita Hill and the can of Coke. How did this weirdo make it through?
So, yes, any remotely normal decision seems like a miracle with some of these clowns pontificating their absurdities.
And these jokers are in power FOR LIFE!
We need to amend that law. There needs to be a way for the the branches or the people too impeach or fire a justice. They have too much unchecked power.
Also, put the hearings on CSPAN so we can see them think and watch them them spin their SNL Caveman Lawyer musings.
Scalia thought the Jesus-freak outburst during the same-sex marriage arguments was "refreshing"--we need that sound-bite edited and looped on video.
Thomas? We all forget about his vetting process--Anita Hill and the can of Coke. How did this weirdo make it through?
So, yes, any remotely normal decision seems like a miracle with some of these clowns pontificating their absurdities.
And these jokers are in power FOR LIFE!
We need to amend that law. There needs to be a way for the the branches or the people too impeach or fire a justice. They have too much unchecked power.
Also, put the hearings on CSPAN so we can see them think and watch them them spin their SNL Caveman Lawyer musings.
Scalia thought the Jesus-freak outburst during the same-sex marriage arguments was "refreshing"--we need that sound-bite edited and looped on video.
10
Checks and balances. Is it better to have judges self-promote in elections where a large number of citzens are unaware of judicial elections much less participate in them (seriously.. who in the room is qualified to hire a judge?) or allow them to be voted in by proxy through partisan appointment? I feel like both systems compromise impartiality
1
I've started to day-dream about moving to Denmark or Canada that isn't good.
7
taking the selection by merit thing a bit further...wouldn't it be good to move all judges to referee status? Essentially rotate the position, as a term limited post with a pool of emeriti and peer advanced lawyers?
Even the Supremes...a term limit alone would ensure a much less etched in stone bunch to deal with The Living Document...
Even the Supremes...a term limit alone would ensure a much less etched in stone bunch to deal with The Living Document...
3
I have been making comments about the lack of morality of the Russian leadership on the Kiev (Ukraine)Post. But to see that 4 justices of the American Supreme Court should be so totally lacking in moral fiber should also be noted.
13
Isn't the Supreme Court going off the deep end here? State judge candidates asking lawyers for campaign money is no big deal here in Pennsylvania. We don't get excited until one of our state Supreme Court judges puts his wife on the court's payroll and then refers potential litigants to the law firm with which she's also affiliated and which pays her for the referrals. Note that both things are required before we start to get a little upset. Just putting your wife, children, parents and in-laws on the public payroll is no big deal. Members of Congress do that all the time for each other: you put your wife on my payroll and I'll hire yours. It's a great way to bring potential new talent to government.
11
My bet is that, as a child, Justice Scalia chose a Darth Vader outfit for at least one Halloween outing.
7
Last time I checked the law was still gender, race. color, ethnic, sectarian, socioeconomic political educational history. There is no innate morality nor justice nor logic nor reason nor wisdom nor natural law in what is "legal". Native genocide, slavery and Jim Crow were all legal. And for blacks justice as Richard Pryor noted in a criminal context still means "just us."
Lawyers have the ethical obligation to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Begging for money to win any judicial election or any judicial nomination or selection goes well beyond the appearance of any impropriety.
Merit selection means picking a well known white, black, brown or yellow politically partisan plutocrat judicial candidate.
Lawyers have the ethical obligation to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Begging for money to win any judicial election or any judicial nomination or selection goes well beyond the appearance of any impropriety.
Merit selection means picking a well known white, black, brown or yellow politically partisan plutocrat judicial candidate.
8
One small step for man, one giant step for this conservative Supreme Court.
8
Kudos to all commenters of this article. I thoroughly enjoy reading Ms. Collins, and the very smart and witty comments to her piece of today make it a double joy.
1
Roberts is the best politician on the Court. He wants to keep the Liberals quite while the poison of Citizen's United turns the 2016 elections into a pure money fight.
Thanks to Citizens United, no candidate can think of running for office without the money of the 1%
If our only choice is between Jeb and Hillary our Democracy is truly dead.
Thanks to Citizens United, no candidate can think of running for office without the money of the 1%
If our only choice is between Jeb and Hillary our Democracy is truly dead.
1
If money=Free Speech, I hereby, with this sentence, pay Justice Scalia the $10,000 he loaned me. Thanks so much, Tony.
1
Just another example of our country going to hell in a hand basket.
Thank you Gail.
Thank you Gail.
3
This court does not have a uniform line of reasoning. They seem to be going in different directions on the same issues as if they were guessing at conclusions.
2
Gee, I wonder what impact this will have on Sam Brownback's campaign to elect state judges who are as far right as his legislature.
1
I'm so grateful to Chief Justice Roberts for this one that I wish his position were elective so that I could contribute to his campaign.
4
Similarly, with Citizens United, the Supreme Court has seemingly rule--like judges--politicians are not politicians. (They certainly don't enact like politicians.)
They've ruled corporations are people, Equal Opportunity is no longer necessary (and so close to Baltimore) and are now pondering the future of Gay marriage.
It might be time for judges, like Nascar drivers, to wear the logos of those they rule in favor of.
They've ruled corporations are people, Equal Opportunity is no longer necessary (and so close to Baltimore) and are now pondering the future of Gay marriage.
It might be time for judges, like Nascar drivers, to wear the logos of those they rule in favor of.
9
It seems that one gets something like justice from Justice Roberts when the reputation of the shop he runs is further endangered. "Judges are not politicians," he says. Keep telling yourself that, Justice.
5
Sick, sick, sick. Does skyping a candidate judge to say thank you count as permissable? Or do you need the transcript?
This is all so many angels dancing on the head of a pin. People shrug their shoulders at the fine distinctions in a case brought before the SUPREME Court for gosh sake. They may as well have been ruling on which brand of coffee to serve at court meetings.
We live in our own version of judicial Alice in Wonderland. Where up is down and right is left. Kafka would have had a field day with this court. He could call it "The Fixed trial."
This is all so many angels dancing on the head of a pin. People shrug their shoulders at the fine distinctions in a case brought before the SUPREME Court for gosh sake. They may as well have been ruling on which brand of coffee to serve at court meetings.
We live in our own version of judicial Alice in Wonderland. Where up is down and right is left. Kafka would have had a field day with this court. He could call it "The Fixed trial."
7
"what would we do without Justice Scalia? " Better. Much better.
6
The thief is asked to guard the bank vault, the wolf to guard the sheep, the cat to patrol the fish bowl and the Supreme Lawyers Court to reject their personal history, friends, acquaintances, experiencies, previous connections etc., To whom do they recuse themselves to?
2
Given so few comments on one of Gail's topics, I guess most people really do think judicial elections are not worth their time. But kind of like 75% of 8th graders not knowing much about history, we ignore the operations of this branch of government at our own peril.
http://time.com/3839840/8th-graders-history-geography-civics-tests/
http://time.com/3839840/8th-graders-history-geography-civics-tests/
2
This column is about the politicization of our national judiciary, but the bigger picture has more to do with the commoditization of our entire poliical process. Now that the Supreme Court has put America's "elected" politicians on an auction block, what is the next logical step?
Check Craig's List or the local classifieds under "Auctions: Governments." There you'll find the ad, "US Government. For sale to highest bidder. Judiciary included. Cash or bank check only."
Check Craig's List or the local classifieds under "Auctions: Governments." There you'll find the ad, "US Government. For sale to highest bidder. Judiciary included. Cash or bank check only."
5
Asking for a campaign contribution to run for a judgeship is prima facie evidence of corruption and should be an automatic disqualification for the position.
1
I do not want to be a drizzle on anyone's parade but would someone please tell me what is not for sale in this country?
9
It's painfully clear that, after destroying democracy in Chile, Argentina, Iran and several countries in Central America during the second half of the 20th century, the ruling elite in America realized that they had the power to destroy democracy in the United States, and they set out to accomplish it. I keep clinging to the idea that the oldest democracy in the world still is, at least a little bit, not just a democracy in name only, and that it is still possible for the situation to turn around. If it keeps going in the direction it's going, I shudder to think what kind of United States my children and grandchildren will live in.
12
And then, of course it can and should be made a disbar able offence for any attorney or firm of attorneys to fund directly of indirectly the election any judicial candidate or judge running for reelection and is should be deemed to be judicial tampering. That will level the field a bit. The trial lawyers would approve if indirectly did not include bagmen.
1
The Comedy Party believes that any public official who accepts anything from anybody should go to jail for a long time, and lose his or her pension.
On the other hand, we think that those legislators, judges and others who do NOT accept anything should have their pensions doubled.
The prohibition on accepting anything, incidentally, is a lifetime prohibition and applies to close family members etc. as well as to the official.
Being a legislator, judge or other American government official should be a calling of almost religious altruism, not an opportunity to line your pockets. Cincinnatus and George Washington turned down kingships, so Judge Whomsoever should be willing to turn down a few thousand.
To see this and other practical steps to save America and the world, go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). You will be glad you did.
On the other hand, we think that those legislators, judges and others who do NOT accept anything should have their pensions doubled.
The prohibition on accepting anything, incidentally, is a lifetime prohibition and applies to close family members etc. as well as to the official.
Being a legislator, judge or other American government official should be a calling of almost religious altruism, not an opportunity to line your pockets. Cincinnatus and George Washington turned down kingships, so Judge Whomsoever should be willing to turn down a few thousand.
To see this and other practical steps to save America and the world, go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). You will be glad you did.
2
In reality in many jurisdictions being on the ballot as a Republican or a Democrat is tantamount to election. I practiced as a trial attorney in NYC and surrounding counties for 40 years and I began 50 years ago. After 20 years practicing in State Supreme Court you may become “a regular’ if you have a lot of cases you become an insider. You get to know which judges favor what firms, lawyers and parties. You know when the fix is or how judges lean. 25 years ago a female judge who was totally incompetent and frivolous complained to a few lawyers in chambers in a wounded tone that she would resign from the bench if only she could get her money back. When I told this to another judge in chambers he looked at me and smiling said “I wonder what she meant” and we had a good laugh.
40 years ago, as I recollect, it was generally believed that a judgeship cost $100,000.00 in cash. It was called a political contribution. However in some jurisdictions they go through the charade of elections and I dare say that the corrupt candidate who’s the better funded and runs more ads.
Lawyers and judges are in the same business and they attend the same outings and I’ve seen judges and lawyers playing poker and shooting craps in the locker room on golf outings. “OK judge I’ll raise you twenty.” This is reserved for courthouse insiders. If you are not part of the club for the particular court, when the fix is in you are playing a game where the rules are unknown to you.
40 years ago, as I recollect, it was generally believed that a judgeship cost $100,000.00 in cash. It was called a political contribution. However in some jurisdictions they go through the charade of elections and I dare say that the corrupt candidate who’s the better funded and runs more ads.
Lawyers and judges are in the same business and they attend the same outings and I’ve seen judges and lawyers playing poker and shooting craps in the locker room on golf outings. “OK judge I’ll raise you twenty.” This is reserved for courthouse insiders. If you are not part of the club for the particular court, when the fix is in you are playing a game where the rules are unknown to you.
7
So Roberts thinks he is not a politician and what he does is not politics! One more addition to the long list of things he's wrong about.
10
Gail is on to something here—that the most persuasive and effective response to the Roberts Court is laughter. His claim to be simply an umpire objectively calling balls and strikes is evidently ridiculous.
8
Roberts explained that "judges are not politicians." Except for our now outrageously politicized Supreme Court of course.
15
When somebody has been consistently doing bad things – like the Supreme Court’s opening the barn door for big corporate money to trample the role of small donors in every election – and that person unexpectedly does one small good thing, there are two ways of looking at that little bit of integrity.
You can see the modest act of decency as a first step in reforming a wayward behavior, hopeful that past wrongs of a very serious nature will eventually be righted. Or, you can consider the surprising good deed as nothing more than a tiny sop, intended only to distract public attention from past misconduct and from future malfeasance for which plans already have been made.
Sadly, it now probably would be wise to expect the worst from the Five Angry Men who control our Supreme Court.
You can see the modest act of decency as a first step in reforming a wayward behavior, hopeful that past wrongs of a very serious nature will eventually be righted. Or, you can consider the surprising good deed as nothing more than a tiny sop, intended only to distract public attention from past misconduct and from future malfeasance for which plans already have been made.
Sadly, it now probably would be wise to expect the worst from the Five Angry Men who control our Supreme Court.
10
The Roberts Court, just like The Charge of The Fools Brigade into Iraq, torture as USG policy and the disappearance of 40% of US household wealth somewhere in the vicinity of Wall Street all began in the same place.
When Thurd Bush as Governor corrupted the 2000 election, disenfranchising tens of thousands of legitimate voters and interfering in the actual vote count.
Which allowed Bush family retainers on the Supremes to appoint Boy George, the supremely unqualified, dimwitted, disastrous for America and the world, as President.
When Thurd Bush as Governor corrupted the 2000 election, disenfranchising tens of thousands of legitimate voters and interfering in the actual vote count.
Which allowed Bush family retainers on the Supremes to appoint Boy George, the supremely unqualified, dimwitted, disastrous for America and the world, as President.
23
Instead of hoping for real reform from reactionaries, we might start basing our voting less on advertising and more on thinking.
5
See article “American Exception: Rendering Justice, With One Eye on Re-election” by Adam Liptak, May 25, 2008. It's one of an eye opening series. Time to be updated for 2015.
Says the US is one of the few countries that elects judges, and with bad results for our justice system. He quotes Justice Sandra Day Oconnor on that. Politicized indeed.
Uses the example of France and other countries where judges are appointed, not elected---thus a more moderate, humane, rational justice system. And their judges don’t have the indignity of fundraising.
Our biased and extreme system of injustice and incarceration is corrupted by elections of judges and prosecutors. What else are they going to run on but tough on crime? Would their campaign ads say Judge so and so revealed phony police testimony and released many wrongly accused suspects, thereby supporting the US Bill of Rights? Hardly. Judges compete on how many criminals they sentence, and for how long.
And then the politicians take big donor money, and run on welfare fraud, and ‘dependency’. While they and their corporate sponsors are co-dependent on legalized welfare from tax payers and corporate loopholes. Gail Collins could write a nice column on that.
Says the US is one of the few countries that elects judges, and with bad results for our justice system. He quotes Justice Sandra Day Oconnor on that. Politicized indeed.
Uses the example of France and other countries where judges are appointed, not elected---thus a more moderate, humane, rational justice system. And their judges don’t have the indignity of fundraising.
Our biased and extreme system of injustice and incarceration is corrupted by elections of judges and prosecutors. What else are they going to run on but tough on crime? Would their campaign ads say Judge so and so revealed phony police testimony and released many wrongly accused suspects, thereby supporting the US Bill of Rights? Hardly. Judges compete on how many criminals they sentence, and for how long.
And then the politicians take big donor money, and run on welfare fraud, and ‘dependency’. While they and their corporate sponsors are co-dependent on legalized welfare from tax payers and corporate loopholes. Gail Collins could write a nice column on that.
10
Ah, Sandra Day O'Connor. Back in 2000 when Bush was running against Gore, Supreme Court Justice O'Connor was overheard saying at a very hi toned Washington party that she couldn't support the idea of Gore winning since then she couldn't retire because Gore would appoint a liberal. And hers was the deciding vote that gave Bush Florida and the election, and gave the rest of us 911, Iraq, Cheney and 8 years of economic hell. Thanks Sandra Day.
27
A few years ago a dear friend of mine ran for district judge. He's a funny, smart, gregarious man. But holding fundraisers, having to ask for campaign donations, was so offensive to him his discomfort was palpable. He won, but soon his term will end and he'll have to endure it once again. It's a wretched necessity, especially in judicial elections. But it'll be a cold day in hell before lawmakers in Texas vote for any kind of public funding.
3
Hypocrisy reigns at the Supreme "court".
7
Nah. Scalia and Thomas both walk this walk.
Yes, four out of nine justices on the US Supreme Court don't think there is anything wrong with a judge asking lawyers and litigants for campaign donations. Roberts must realize how debased and corrupt his conservative majority on the Court appear to the public and is trying to cover his tracks a bit. But it's way too little and way too late.
15
When and where does it all end? Does anyone wonder why the avg citizen has lost faith in the political system? Why does anyone shake their head and ask why, when aggrieved citizens turn to violence to express their anger at a polluted judicial system? When the noted issue in todays piece is a victory losses end up being wipeouts. Don't know when or how it ends but the next take down in the financial/political/legal system could be very disturbing.
4
Gail, maybe I've been with the little ones too long, but what comes to mind is the Mother Goose rhyme, "There was a Crroked Man..." The only problem I am having is the rhyme speaks of one man and his mile long village and I'm pretty sure this crooked thing has spread far and wide.
And with "crooked" and "judges" in mind, my kids bought the house of a now deceased judge. It took the longest time to get used to, but the driveway is slightly crooked, just enough to make the unsuspecting back straight and end up in the grass.
And with "crooked" and "judges" in mind, my kids bought the house of a now deceased judge. It took the longest time to get used to, but the driveway is slightly crooked, just enough to make the unsuspecting back straight and end up in the grass.
4
Like trying to put your fingers in the hundreds of holes in the dike.... In my county, judges also trade favors with the attorneys before them. An example would be if a lawyer represents a judge's relative in a case, prohibiting the lawyer from trying cases before that judge, then the judge will give his client a nod in an upcoming child support case or divorce settlement. My attorney told me this outright, verbally of course. Our criminal justice system from the top down, John Roberts, stinks to high heaven of massive corruption and monkeying with our democracy to please the plutocrats. It has as much integrity as Confederate money.
20
Of course judges - and Supreme Court Justicies - are politicians. Everything about their jobs is political. No where in our founding documents are they defined as above the fray. What a silly, presumptuous and dangerous idea. Justice Roberts is deluded.
7
What's happening with the US? Everything we learn about our government is depressing. Not only do we have a for-sale government, we also have a for-sale "justice" system that is a sham.
The Roberts' Court is the source of the erosion of sound democratically elected government and the court itself is a joke. This so-called step in the right direction is so pathetically inadequate that it is nothing short of being a cover for pay-as-you-go justice.
The road to recovery in America begins with impeaching 5 members of SCOTUS.
The Roberts' Court is the source of the erosion of sound democratically elected government and the court itself is a joke. This so-called step in the right direction is so pathetically inadequate that it is nothing short of being a cover for pay-as-you-go justice.
The road to recovery in America begins with impeaching 5 members of SCOTUS.
21
As Ms. Collins notes, "good news is so pathetically puny" that we get excited when our justices can get up, tie their shoe laces and not trip over on their way to work.
It has come to a point wherein we ask for so little from so many of our politicians and justices. And indeed it is a beautiful day in the neighborhood when they show up for work. Or when the insurance company fixes my porch light within minutes of my house being flattened by a tornado.
It has come to a point wherein we ask for so little from so many of our politicians and justices. And indeed it is a beautiful day in the neighborhood when they show up for work. Or when the insurance company fixes my porch light within minutes of my house being flattened by a tornado.
7
Judges should not be directly elected. We are overdue to abolish this practice wherever it persists. Judges will always be indirectly 'elected', in that they must be nominated, approved, appointed, etc. by people who hold elective office. There's no way around that. But our election system basically puts judgeships, like all other elective offices, for sale to the highest bidder.
'To no one will we sell, to no one will we delay or deny, right or justice'. - Magna Carta (1297)
'To no one will we sell, to no one will we delay or deny, right or justice'. - Magna Carta (1297)
13
@ACW - I like your sentiment but Magna Carta was signed in 1215. The version you refer to is a copy of the original.
Ever wonder how much money the private prison industry pumps into judicial elections? One way to make sure the (mostly poor and black) customers keep coming.
13
Before we know it Koch will replace Coca Cola as the number one soda in the land. The same Supreme Court led by John Roberts who ensured that his good old buddy George W. would be President even though he lost the popular vote is attempting to make amends with a disgruntled populace. The same Supreme Court that ruled that Corporations are people and should not be denied free speech lest it deprive them of their Constitutional rights and they would be an oppressed minority just like gays, blacks and women stripped of their reproductive freedom. Now, by settling this tiny little pesky Florida court case in favor of banning the act of soliciting money for judicial campaigns, the Supreme Court has made a tiny small footstep towards recognizing the rampant graft, extortion and corruption of the supposed blind judicial system in what is supposed to be the highest court of the land. I can not wait to watch and see what other leaps of mankind are up their sleeves in upcoming court decisions.
20
ALL public officials should be investigated for 'financial shenanigans' prior to election, and kept under financial oversight throughout their tenure. In today's world, this oversight could be completely objective if left to computers.
In the past, it made the most sense to use 'the honor system' and let opponents discover and disclose discrepancies. The flaws in that approach are obvious in the current state of US politics. It just progresses to a point where the 'blue code' of politics supports a de facto state of corrupt behavior. In these cultures punishment will only be used against 'sacrificial lambs', those who would either stupidly do something to expose or threaten the system, or those with the audacity to attack the corrupt culture itself (aka an Obama like person who runs on a reform agenda, aka a suicide missionary).
In the past, it made the most sense to use 'the honor system' and let opponents discover and disclose discrepancies. The flaws in that approach are obvious in the current state of US politics. It just progresses to a point where the 'blue code' of politics supports a de facto state of corrupt behavior. In these cultures punishment will only be used against 'sacrificial lambs', those who would either stupidly do something to expose or threaten the system, or those with the audacity to attack the corrupt culture itself (aka an Obama like person who runs on a reform agenda, aka a suicide missionary).
5
I wonder how many seemingly enlightened ordinary citizens could still learn something about human welfare and the central condition of progress through re-connection with Theodore Roosevelt's extraordinary 1912 third party election campaign?
http://lifeamongtheordinary.blogspot.com/2014/05/trs-new-nationalism-and...
http://lifeamongtheordinary.blogspot.com/2014/05/trs-new-nationalism-and...
3
One of the readers of this absolutely funny (but cynical) op-ed promotes term limits for our S.C. Well, why not? The Founders had a life expectancy that was much, much shorter. So I guess that those dead white men simply could not imagine a person on the bench who was over 80, for example.
Or, maybe with an indifferent electorate, sleeping while on duty may seem to be O.K.
Or, maybe with an indifferent electorate, sleeping while on duty may seem to be O.K.
10
I still don't understand how having limits on campaign contributions limits anyone's rights to "free speech." It seems like campaign limits are the big equalizer. If a Koch is limited to $2,000 and Joe Blow is limited to $2,000, then that means that Koch and Blow are equal, even if Joe Blow is only a low-level executive at a gizmo factory. Oh, right, all men are not created "equal." The rich are entitled to be more equal than the poor, because they've worked harder for it, even if they've inherited it. That's why it will take rioting in the streets of our cities and threats to the property of the wealthy and even to their persons, a la the French or Russian Revolutions, for we, the people, to become equal to You, the Rich People.
52
Unfortunately the free speech issue is not irrelevant. Even if the amount of individual campaign contributions were strictly limited, and I believe they should be, how do you prevent someone or a group of people from independently creating a political add and buying time on television to support the candidate or position of their choice? You can't because that would clearly be a violation of free speech. I am afraid that the best we can hope for is a more intelligent electorate and a law that requires full transparency.
5
The playing field can be leveled by government controls designed to increase the power of the voter. 1) More truth, less lies and innuendo...even if it means public news sources (even government funded resources) that are to required present balanced and objective facts and arguments rather than leaving the job or information distribution to the charismatic talking heads of self serving ideological evangelicals'; 2) Easier access to cast votes, and concerted efforts to promote elections; 3) Financial oversight of ALL public officials (we can suffer the crooks of "free enterprise", but government is chartered with protecting us, not suckering us;
Billion dollar elections provide 'Colosseum level entertainment spectaculars' that generate tons of economic activity, but is that what elections are all about?
Billion dollar elections provide 'Colosseum level entertainment spectaculars' that generate tons of economic activity, but is that what elections are all about?
3
Term limits. That is what we should impose on Supreme Court justices. Lifetime terms in a democracy have a bad smell. It should never be allowed and contributes to terminal arrogance.
The appointees have become increasingly partisan, so we need to look at that issue, too. If too many judgeships on the Court come up for nomination during one president's time because of limited terms, then some way of counter acting that should be employed, such as requiring a certain number of seats to be held by those who have been lifelong members of the opposing party. Hey, I don't know. I'm not Thomas Jefferson, but we could, with Gail's help no doubt, work out some kind of system of reasonable balance.
Scalia strikes me as not just partisan, but a bully to boot. Bullies are not a good thing. He told me, and everyone else who cared, to "get over it", meaning the Republicans throwing the 2000 election to Bush. Hey, Tony, I'm never getting over it. The ruling blasted away the foundations of my belief that the Court was anything more than a partisan swamp. Before the ruling, I thought that those black robbed ones actually cared about fairness, justice and balance. So, Scalia cured me of my naivete. I suppose I should be grateful for late blooming maturity, which translates into...disillusionment.
It's going to take us 50 years or more, with hard work along the way, to set democracy back on its feet after the destructive actions of this Court have their full impact. Gee, thanks.
Doug Terry
The appointees have become increasingly partisan, so we need to look at that issue, too. If too many judgeships on the Court come up for nomination during one president's time because of limited terms, then some way of counter acting that should be employed, such as requiring a certain number of seats to be held by those who have been lifelong members of the opposing party. Hey, I don't know. I'm not Thomas Jefferson, but we could, with Gail's help no doubt, work out some kind of system of reasonable balance.
Scalia strikes me as not just partisan, but a bully to boot. Bullies are not a good thing. He told me, and everyone else who cared, to "get over it", meaning the Republicans throwing the 2000 election to Bush. Hey, Tony, I'm never getting over it. The ruling blasted away the foundations of my belief that the Court was anything more than a partisan swamp. Before the ruling, I thought that those black robbed ones actually cared about fairness, justice and balance. So, Scalia cured me of my naivete. I suppose I should be grateful for late blooming maturity, which translates into...disillusionment.
It's going to take us 50 years or more, with hard work along the way, to set democracy back on its feet after the destructive actions of this Court have their full impact. Gee, thanks.
Doug Terry
23
I can relate and agree so much, Doug Terry. After 2000, its been more depressing and demoralizing daily. It is shameless what the right wing has done to our democratic republic.
Well, politicians are for sale and judges still are. As Adam Smith pointed out, justice has traditionally been delivered in exchange for something. Smith also points out that there is a corrosive effect to society. Well the Constitutional Originalists are getting their way - "Love for Sale" is now justice for sale.
8
In our society everything is for sale!
The value that we have lost is not "family values", but the value of democracy.
The 'sausage making' of democracy is just too complicated for most people, and there is not much incentive for those who govern us to decrease the complexity (both liberals and conservatives seem to agree that corruption (and windows of opportunity for corruption) should be numerous, and mostly on cruise control........and all of those claims about reform and small government are designed to insure that the corruption remains under the control of "the deserving").
The value that we have lost is not "family values", but the value of democracy.
The 'sausage making' of democracy is just too complicated for most people, and there is not much incentive for those who govern us to decrease the complexity (both liberals and conservatives seem to agree that corruption (and windows of opportunity for corruption) should be numerous, and mostly on cruise control........and all of those claims about reform and small government are designed to insure that the corruption remains under the control of "the deserving").
Collins is right that this is a trivial cleanup by a political corruption-sponsoring Court.
There is no alternative but to impeach Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.
Save the nation.
There is no alternative but to impeach Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.
Save the nation.
29
The Supreme Court is just a symptom not the disease. The disease is it is 2015 and we are dealing with a constitution written when if you were ill you went to the barber for some good old fashioned bleeding.
Even so I have little doubt that for Alito and Scalia their judicial temperament is much more in line with Torquemada's Court of Inquisition than a 21st century nation state that is trying to get back onto the road to democracy. Thomas would be incompetent in traffic court never mind dealing with a constitution written by men who were versed in Greek, Roman and Hebrew Literature and understood that an evolving language like English was a place for a framework and laws are written in precise languages like French or Latin.
Even so I have little doubt that for Alito and Scalia their judicial temperament is much more in line with Torquemada's Court of Inquisition than a 21st century nation state that is trying to get back onto the road to democracy. Thomas would be incompetent in traffic court never mind dealing with a constitution written by men who were versed in Greek, Roman and Hebrew Literature and understood that an evolving language like English was a place for a framework and laws are written in precise languages like French or Latin.
Merit selection at the very least would tamp down the insidious judicial-political behemoth that has been created. It's impossible for judges who curry favor with voters to be completely impartial once they are voted onto the bench. Very doubtful this is what the founding fathers envisioned. Leave "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" to the other two branches.
4
In a way, it's good we have Scalia in there... he is like the darkness against which even tiny bits of goodness and light are amplified and made visible to all. Would that we had far more light and goodness, but we take what we get.
32
.
.
Here in New York County, which mainly consists of the island of Manhattan, one of our two probate judges (we call them "Surrogates" or "Judges of the Surrogate Court") actually stood trial on charges related to campaign financing.
Nora Anderson was acquitted, in part because the money changed hands in another County, and was therefore outside the jurisdiction of the criminal court here in New York County. Her benefactor, an attorney with an active caseload in the Surrogate Court, was quite forthcoming about the transfer of funds. He (and she) called it a "loan". She quite properly received the presumption of innocence, and the prosecutor did not overcome it.
She was sworn in a year late.
Oh, the "loan" at issue? $250,000. A quarter-mil.
Gail, judges all over this country are elected; and too little attention is paid to the obvious inherent problems. You have once again used your column to perform a public service.
We in New York do have one important class of judges who used to be elected, but now are not.
A few decades ago, wealthy lawyer Jacob Fuchsberg won election to the State's highest appeals court. He had never been a judge as far as I know. After that, the State Constitution was amended to provide for appointive judgeships. Judge Fuchsberg was the last judge elected to that Court.
Because money corrupts elections, apparently.
.
Here in New York County, which mainly consists of the island of Manhattan, one of our two probate judges (we call them "Surrogates" or "Judges of the Surrogate Court") actually stood trial on charges related to campaign financing.
Nora Anderson was acquitted, in part because the money changed hands in another County, and was therefore outside the jurisdiction of the criminal court here in New York County. Her benefactor, an attorney with an active caseload in the Surrogate Court, was quite forthcoming about the transfer of funds. He (and she) called it a "loan". She quite properly received the presumption of innocence, and the prosecutor did not overcome it.
She was sworn in a year late.
Oh, the "loan" at issue? $250,000. A quarter-mil.
Gail, judges all over this country are elected; and too little attention is paid to the obvious inherent problems. You have once again used your column to perform a public service.
We in New York do have one important class of judges who used to be elected, but now are not.
A few decades ago, wealthy lawyer Jacob Fuchsberg won election to the State's highest appeals court. He had never been a judge as far as I know. After that, the State Constitution was amended to provide for appointive judgeships. Judge Fuchsberg was the last judge elected to that Court.
Because money corrupts elections, apparently.
3
John Roberts: "Judges are not politicians"
Actually, the court majorities that gave us rulings that corporations are people with "religious rights" and that money is speech would be more appropriately described as political hacks impersonating Supreme Court justices. The Roberts Court has done more to destroy the legitimacy of a once venerated institution than any court in a century.
And their Citizens United decision may yet stand as the worst ever, making American elections a money-grubbing farce. Quite a legacy, Mr. Chief Justice.
Actually, the court majorities that gave us rulings that corporations are people with "religious rights" and that money is speech would be more appropriately described as political hacks impersonating Supreme Court justices. The Roberts Court has done more to destroy the legitimacy of a once venerated institution than any court in a century.
And their Citizens United decision may yet stand as the worst ever, making American elections a money-grubbing farce. Quite a legacy, Mr. Chief Justice.
16
There is a paradox regarding respect for judges. In opinion polls, lawyers get some of the lowest numbers for respect. And politicians are respected even less. Yet, judges have perennially been well-respected.
Well, what is a judge but a combination of a lawyer and a politician?
Go figure.
Well, what is a judge but a combination of a lawyer and a politician?
Go figure.
6
So according to Chief Justice Roberts, "judges are not politicians." Has he glanced to his left and right (literally) whilst sitting on the bench lately?
7
"...what would we do without Justice Scalia?" We might start moving out of the 18th century and in the general direction of Modernity. That's what.
15
The very, real possibility of a Supreme Court member retiring or passing away, is one reason I always vote in presidential elections. Don’t want the court to be loaded with characters from the OTHER party.
It’s unfortunate, that right and wrong is sometimes a political decision. Outside the the “Good Ole USA” we routinely hear about unimaginably awful legal systems.
To my mind, law without justice is nothing more than a threat of force. Sometimes, judges are nothing more than gangsters in drag.
It’s unfortunate, that right and wrong is sometimes a political decision. Outside the the “Good Ole USA” we routinely hear about unimaginably awful legal systems.
To my mind, law without justice is nothing more than a threat of force. Sometimes, judges are nothing more than gangsters in drag.
10
All the right wing anti-Christs have done is to make an entire nation equate money with morality. If you have money your are moral if not you are immoral, it doesn't matter how you made it as long as you did not hurt another rich person doing so. Hurting the poor and middle class well that is the right way to make money off the backs of the less fortunate. The Puritans have won. The poor will soon be fitted with scarlet "P's" so their shame of not having money will be seen by all. The middle class with red targets on their backs as fair game.
10
So judges and their sponsors can kiss (no French osculation, of course) andeven hold hands in public, but for second, third, and home base, they must seek privacy.
I almost wrote "privy".
SCOTUS makes bordellos look honest.
I almost wrote "privy".
SCOTUS makes bordellos look honest.
11
Thank you, Fred Wertheimer, for continuing to fight the good fight.
5
Was Ms. Williams-Yulee a Democrat? I bet she was. So I hope this decision will cut both ways, holding Republican judges to the same standard.
2
I always thought that expression applied mainly to the IRS.
The first notable I ever was aware of who roundly condemned the election of judges was Aaron Burr, our third vice-president, almost our third president, the notorious maximum demoter of Alexander Hamilton and the man over whom Thomas Jefferson can credibly be charged with going psycho, at least for a time. It goes back that far in our history.
There are many who defend the practice of electing judges, apparently believing that justice is a matter of personal conviction around which we can organize political parties and campaigns. Not I. Not for nothing did we make federal judgeships lifetime appointments during good behavior: the notion of an elected judge brings to mind, at least to me, nothing less than some populist demagogue skilled at rousing rabbles and materially less so at what I’d regard as appropriate judicial demeanor.
I imagine there are plenty of exceptions to the rule, and that some elected judges operate with gravitas, judicial restraint and a high standard of professionalism. They’d do better to get appointed, except that they live in venues where they can’t.
Gail evinces natural distaste at a judge huckstering for votes; and without saying it, perhaps the natural suspicion that the interests of supporters might be more carefully attended to than the interests of blind justice. I don’t blame her.
The first notable I ever was aware of who roundly condemned the election of judges was Aaron Burr, our third vice-president, almost our third president, the notorious maximum demoter of Alexander Hamilton and the man over whom Thomas Jefferson can credibly be charged with going psycho, at least for a time. It goes back that far in our history.
There are many who defend the practice of electing judges, apparently believing that justice is a matter of personal conviction around which we can organize political parties and campaigns. Not I. Not for nothing did we make federal judgeships lifetime appointments during good behavior: the notion of an elected judge brings to mind, at least to me, nothing less than some populist demagogue skilled at rousing rabbles and materially less so at what I’d regard as appropriate judicial demeanor.
I imagine there are plenty of exceptions to the rule, and that some elected judges operate with gravitas, judicial restraint and a high standard of professionalism. They’d do better to get appointed, except that they live in venues where they can’t.
Gail evinces natural distaste at a judge huckstering for votes; and without saying it, perhaps the natural suspicion that the interests of supporters might be more carefully attended to than the interests of blind justice. I don’t blame her.
3
The current conservative side of the SCOTUS bench has somehow manage to miss a chance to inject more money into elections. John Roberts thinks that judges shouldn't be able to extort money from the lawyers appearing before them. Wow! Do I detect a moral stand, sort of? Of course, billionaires and multinational corporations are allowed to buy other elected officials ad lib. Because money is speech, so they're not buying, they're just talking! My voice — as just a, what do they call it, oh yes... a citizen — isn't quite as loud as the Koch brothers, but that's apparently OK with Scalia et al.
Whenever I think about the decisions of this court over the last decade, I remember Dave Barry's phrase: "I swear I'm not making this up!" Without Gail's mordant chuckles about all this, I'd be crying.
Whenever I think about the decisions of this court over the last decade, I remember Dave Barry's phrase: "I swear I'm not making this up!" Without Gail's mordant chuckles about all this, I'd be crying.
11
Everyone should recognize this classic Roberts strategy. He never goes for a really big outrage at one time in one case. He opens the issue with one case, then finishes it off with a larger, second case. This time his setup comes after the coup d'grace instead of before it, and that does have me a little confused. But this sad little decision, which is of no real consequence, could just be a canard to take some heat off him for Citizens United.
6
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Gail, I want to have your baby.
5
I never thought our Republican Congress could fail to inspire a merry Gail Collins romp through the enchanted, anti-intellectual forest of Tea Party presidential wannabes. As we await the next installment of the presidential primary book club, I guess this is what, stateside, we'd have to call a slow news week.
There's been rioting in Baltimore. Again. In Nepal, people appeared shaken, but largely unstirred...
There's been rioting in Baltimore. Again. In Nepal, people appeared shaken, but largely unstirred...
2
The Supreme Court members are so different from one another, and so capricious in their interpretation of the Constitution and the laws, that they leave everybody guessing as to what a decision will be, and on what basis. And partisanship seems in display as well. Oh well, human frailty at its best, and a wandering spirit too. Just wish the decisions of these few 'wise' men didn't affect so many the wrong way.
4
We can only be thankful that there have to be nine. Yet still, the lesson in the current threat to democracy and the "American way" is that we need to be more careful about how frequently we elect Republican Presidents. Individual States should also take note about the election of folks who believe in the conservation of self over and above everything else is fraught with 'a sense of selective empathy' that produces unexpected danger to humanity as a whole.
From the article: “A momentous victory for public faith in the integrity of our judicial system,” said an attorney at the Campaign Legal Center."
Yeah. Pretty words, no substance, no meaning.
"You're telling me that the water in my basement is down by a third, but I'm telling you that there's water in my basement."
In the words of Kurt Vonnegut, "And so it goes."
Yeah. Pretty words, no substance, no meaning.
"You're telling me that the water in my basement is down by a third, but I'm telling you that there's water in my basement."
In the words of Kurt Vonnegut, "And so it goes."
15
The United States Supreme Court used to be held in the highest regard and was often quoted by courts around the world.
No more.
No more.
22
In it's unquenchable quest to conserve freedom and equality for "their definition of the deserving", conservative America has destroyed 100 years of American progress and respect around the world, not to mention 200 years of social progress here at home.
The good news is that this recent world wide outbreak of conservative gloom, doom, ideological (aka religious, racial, cultural) purity, inhumanity, death and destruction that's ridden in on the wave of change represented by the "information age" is going to end.
The bad news is that it might end badly.
The good news is that this recent world wide outbreak of conservative gloom, doom, ideological (aka religious, racial, cultural) purity, inhumanity, death and destruction that's ridden in on the wave of change represented by the "information age" is going to end.
The bad news is that it might end badly.
1
A radical idea would be to appoint people to be judges who've gone to school to learn how to be judges and who become civil servants. No political campaigns, no campaign donors, no quid pro quos, etc. For example, https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/training-support/judici... "The Judicial College is directly responsible for training full (salaried) and part-time (fee-paid) judges in the courts in England and Wales, and for training judges and members of tribunals within the scope of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 which includes reserved tribunals across the UK. The Judicial College is also responsible for overseeing the training of magistrates."
Also true in France, which has the French National School for the Judiciary - http://blogs.loc.gov/law/2011/01/the-french-national-school-for-the-judi...
Also true in France, which has the French National School for the Judiciary - http://blogs.loc.gov/law/2011/01/the-french-national-school-for-the-judi...
6
I cannot believe this decision is just another example of ineptness or it's cousin insanity . The intellects behind the evisceration of the Voting Act, Citizens United and McCutcheon are far too educated not to fully realize how tragically destructive those decisions would be to our American democracy . How they must gloat in their solitude knowing " - - what fools these mortals be ." I doubt anyone reading this or associated with the "Grey Lady" really thinks other than I do . It is time, way past time, that we marshal our capabilities to overcome this nonsensical "Black Robed Charade" and call for it's only solution, impeachment .
26
"Small government" is government of, by, and for the few. The theory seems to be that it works for families, churches, and corporations, why shouldn't it work for government?
The reality is that requirements and objectives that underlie families, churches, corporations, and other hierarchically closed groups of like-thinking folks has absolutely NO similarity to the requirements and objectives of that drive the need for governments.
The reality is that requirements and objectives that underlie families, churches, corporations, and other hierarchically closed groups of like-thinking folks has absolutely NO similarity to the requirements and objectives of that drive the need for governments.
I am Canadian. Citizens United is sponsored by James Lane Buckley brother of William F Buckley Jr and son of William F Buckley Sr that Americans don't understand? The Buckleys never believed in democracy the Buckley oil fortune and the Buckley's literary assets were the principle resource Joseph McCarthy used to achieve his incredible power in Washington. Buckley/Koch McCarthy/McConnell only the names have changed same ideology same war on democracy.
"They can contact potential supporters in prison, on the phone, or online." At least that's how my brain read the line my eyes saw. I had to back up and take a second run at the sentence to solve the disconnect. But even after a second reading, I'm not completely convinced the first interpretation was so inaccurate after all. I mean, you are quoting lawyers and "judges (who) are not politicians."
1
I guess I don't understand the "judges are not politicians" logic. It would seem to me that if they are running for a position that requires the public to vote for them, they are politicians. Scalia is at least consistent with his money is speech position and that the one equals the other. I do believe that if the American people had the opportunity to vote on appointments to the Supreme Court it probably would not have had many of it's current and previous members. Some to the detriment of our society and some to the good. As it stands now, it would seem like the SCOTUS is made up of some lackeys of the guys with the biggest bucks. After Bush vs Gore, Citizens United and the Hobby Lobby case, they are going to have to go a very long way to convince me that they don't live in the pockets of their masters.
16
The application of the First Amendment to campaign financing is nonsensical. First Amendment rights are the rights of the speaker. Only in extreme cases is the public interest relevant -- the shouting fire in a theater exception. Yet, the Supreme Court has ruled that all campaign funding issues depend on the public interest -- that is, the perception of corruption. First Amendment law governing campaign financing should be determined in the typical manner, based on the rights of the speaker. Whether you're buying bread or buying an election, spending is a choice. But how you spend your money is simply not speech. If the Founding Fathers wanted to protect "freedom of spending", they would have said so. Instead, they allowed the government to restrict spending in all kinds of ways -- from regulating commerce to the taxing power. Money is not speech. Pure and simple.
17
Although relatively small potatoes, at least SCOTUS has allowed some restriction on campaign finance for elected judges.
This brings to mind the popularly-elected Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, who famously installed in the Alabama state court complex a massive monument, paid for with public funds, that prominently featured the Ten Commandments. He refused to comply with the order of a Federal judge to remove the monument, Moore himself eventually being removed from office by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary.
But that was not before Judge Moore wrote in a judicial opinion that ''Homosexual behavior is a ground for divorce, an act of sexual misconduct punishable as a crime in Alabama, a crime against nature, an inherent evil, and an act so heinous that it defies one's ability to describe it.''
After removal, Moore tried out for governor but did not survive the primaries. Undeterred, he ran again and was re-elected as Alabama's Chief Justice in 2012. His largest contributor is a major backer of the Constitution Party, which believes the U.S. Constitution has Biblical roots and is also associated with the League of the South, which describes its ultimate goal as ''a free and independent Southern republic.''
Moore is not the kind of judge who should have any power over our rights or the application of our laws. The SCOTUS action may be fairly small, but it is at least a step in the right direction.
This brings to mind the popularly-elected Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, who famously installed in the Alabama state court complex a massive monument, paid for with public funds, that prominently featured the Ten Commandments. He refused to comply with the order of a Federal judge to remove the monument, Moore himself eventually being removed from office by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary.
But that was not before Judge Moore wrote in a judicial opinion that ''Homosexual behavior is a ground for divorce, an act of sexual misconduct punishable as a crime in Alabama, a crime against nature, an inherent evil, and an act so heinous that it defies one's ability to describe it.''
After removal, Moore tried out for governor but did not survive the primaries. Undeterred, he ran again and was re-elected as Alabama's Chief Justice in 2012. His largest contributor is a major backer of the Constitution Party, which believes the U.S. Constitution has Biblical roots and is also associated with the League of the South, which describes its ultimate goal as ''a free and independent Southern republic.''
Moore is not the kind of judge who should have any power over our rights or the application of our laws. The SCOTUS action may be fairly small, but it is at least a step in the right direction.
9
Realistically speaking, "judicial review" is a courtly way in which judges participate de facto in the legislative process by interpreting what the law actually means and by deciding what law can or cannot be. These are often political decisions lightly camouflaged by a judicial process.
So to argue that it is all right for billionaires and corporations to buy politicians, as the Supreme Court did in United Citizens, but a bit unseemly to buy judges--at least if done directly--makes little sense. That is even more the case since Chief Justice Robert's helpfully lists all the other ways in which big money can purchase judicial favors through judicial elections-with all the usual and expensive campaign techniques one finds in other political contests.
At least the Neanderthal conservative bloc on the Court has the consistency of small minds to keep insisting that "money equals speech," just as they did in endorsing the purchase of politicians in Citizens United.
This is a pathetic case of a mountain bringing forth a mouse.
So to argue that it is all right for billionaires and corporations to buy politicians, as the Supreme Court did in United Citizens, but a bit unseemly to buy judges--at least if done directly--makes little sense. That is even more the case since Chief Justice Robert's helpfully lists all the other ways in which big money can purchase judicial favors through judicial elections-with all the usual and expensive campaign techniques one finds in other political contests.
At least the Neanderthal conservative bloc on the Court has the consistency of small minds to keep insisting that "money equals speech," just as they did in endorsing the purchase of politicians in Citizens United.
This is a pathetic case of a mountain bringing forth a mouse.
17
All of the justices owe their positions to the bought politicians who selected and approved them.
2
Just when we might think the Supremes could not sink lower or become yet more dispicible, they surprise us again. When it comes to attaining the worst in the ethics of public life, our country will surely win the race to the muddy bottom. The rest of the world rightly feel they are watching a train wreck.
Thomas and Scalia are certifiable anarchistic madmen. Roberts and Alito are just plain evil. All four were foully dishonest in their appointment hearings. And Biden played a major role in the appointment of Thomas. The Democrats on the Court are on life support and often supine in the face of the onslaught that is dismantling our once great system of government.
Thomas and Scalia are certifiable anarchistic madmen. Roberts and Alito are just plain evil. All four were foully dishonest in their appointment hearings. And Biden played a major role in the appointment of Thomas. The Democrats on the Court are on life support and often supine in the face of the onslaught that is dismantling our once great system of government.
43
Unfortunately for our democracy the "Supremes" really do not care how much damage they bring to the country.
Has anyone thought to require a brain scan of these oldsters. I'm thinking Alzheimer in some cases and extreme narcissism in at least one case.
Has anyone thought to require a brain scan of these oldsters. I'm thinking Alzheimer in some cases and extreme narcissism in at least one case.
32
Justice Kennedy has maintained that stuffing money into politicians' pockets (or failing to stuff said money because said politician has failed to produce mutually agreed behavior) doesn't even suggest a whiff of corruption. Using that ruling's reasoning as a precedent, how can the same Court prescribe how a judge may be paid off?
There are two issues here that will not go away. First, super-rich donors who have filled up their safe deposit boxes in the Caymans need somewhere to send their money. Our tax system coerces them through odious provisions such as Carried Interest to keep nearly all of the money they earn. Some, like Sheldon Adelson and the Brothers Koch, buy morally flexible politicians as nimbly as Imelda Marcos bought pumps. Their excess cash vanishes as their parrots squawk nonsense designed to rile the ignorant while maintaining tax law corruptions that encourage the very behavior in which they indulge.
However, the upside is for judges who would rather not have to schmooze. Remember, nothing in this ruling prohibits your nodding and beaming as someone stands beside you looking a lawyer in the eye and vowing that you're the guy to give him what he wants. Although, if you'd rather not even be in the room as your integrity is auctioned, now you have an out.
It's reminiscent of the way Ginny Thomas speaks for her husband, who might otherwise be accused of multiple massive conflicts of interest. However, the Justice isn't saying a word. Which makes it legal.
There are two issues here that will not go away. First, super-rich donors who have filled up their safe deposit boxes in the Caymans need somewhere to send their money. Our tax system coerces them through odious provisions such as Carried Interest to keep nearly all of the money they earn. Some, like Sheldon Adelson and the Brothers Koch, buy morally flexible politicians as nimbly as Imelda Marcos bought pumps. Their excess cash vanishes as their parrots squawk nonsense designed to rile the ignorant while maintaining tax law corruptions that encourage the very behavior in which they indulge.
However, the upside is for judges who would rather not have to schmooze. Remember, nothing in this ruling prohibits your nodding and beaming as someone stands beside you looking a lawyer in the eye and vowing that you're the guy to give him what he wants. Although, if you'd rather not even be in the room as your integrity is auctioned, now you have an out.
It's reminiscent of the way Ginny Thomas speaks for her husband, who might otherwise be accused of multiple massive conflicts of interest. However, the Justice isn't saying a word. Which makes it legal.
56
Part of the reason we incarcerate more people than any other country on the planet is that our judges have to seem "tough on crime" to be reelected. Indeed, many judges have been voted out of office in favor of a challenger who made a big deal out of a "lenient" sentence handed out to a person convicted of a crime.
48
Don't forget that more and more prisons are in private corporate hands and profits are generated by the number of prisoners in prison run with the cheapest overhead to maximize the bottom line. Judges are at times in cahoots with the prisons and may hand out sentences for the benefit of the prisons. Why do so many countries have shorter sentences in more humane prisons geared toward rehabilitation rather than punishment and revenge and have a far lower recidivism rate as they help their ex cons to regain their civil rights and find employment. Perhaps one state in this country might try something different as a trial experiment and see if this would change things and if so another and another state until we learn that perhaps our current methods might benefit from change.
6
Funny - ironic funny, not "ha ha" funny - that Sandra Day O'Connor, the deciding vote in the single most politicized decision the US Supreme Court ever handed down, is distressed by the way the bench has been politicized.
I would say better late than never, except that in her case late might just as well have been never.
I would say better late than never, except that in her case late might just as well have been never.
69
Since everyone has an opinion on what the most politicized decision of the SCOTUS is, which decision do you mean, John?
2
We not only have the best legislature that money can buy, we have now extended it to the best justice that money can buy.
79
Gail, you have to love and even admire states such as Florida and Texas, where I live. I have never gotten over the fact that it's fine for judges running for election to solicit contributions from attorneys. Somehow this is acceptable to the majority of people here. In fact, the candidates typically come up to the attorney's offices to solicit contributions when they're running for the first time. After that it seems it's not necessary to make a personal appearance. And somehow it is not considered soliciting bribes. I'm sure this is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind when they were discussing the creation of the first amendment.
85
And don't forget those justices' right to carry their weapons with them. Just to establish the right tone for eliciting contributions from justice "consumers" of a more "conservative" persuasion. You know - DA's, prosecuting attorneys, police/correction officer unions, GOP PACS, . . . And why should the NRA be denied their constitutional Right to purchase judical influence? Of course that would be what the founding fathers had in mind when they penned the phrase 'a well-regulated militia' (Somebody's gotta stop the Liberals from destroying the USA). It's just a wee step from 'Citizen's United' to Minutemen in Robes. Thomas, Scalia, Alito, & Roberts, LLC would have no problem with that.
4
Electing judges is a dumb idea in the first place. The average voter is entirely clueless about who might be the more qualified candidate. That, and they couldn't care less about who wins the election anyway. Judges are appointed in the federal system and that works much better than the usual state system of electing judges. At least the candidates in an appointed system are vetted by some committee that has a glimmer about the qualifications of the individual candidates.
86
"The average voter is entirely clueless about who might be the more qualified candidate. " The same could be said about presidential candidates (or any candidate) and yet we took selection out of the back rooms and into primary system. We in Florida like to elect our judges and some of us like to look into their background. Some of us learned in civics class we had a duty to vote and learn about the issues and candidates before we did. Thanks for your opinion.
7
Ken R, you would appear to be the exception that proves the rule.
1
Really? How many of you in Florida really care about looking into judges' background?
How come that Florida is all suddenly such an enlightened State?
How come that Florida is all suddenly such an enlightened State?
2
"Who could be against merit selection? A whole bunch of places, actually."
And that remains a big part of the problem. The right has persuaded itself that the word "merit" is code for hard-line left-wing judges; it's really code for "no more hard-line right-wing radical judges." And who are we to tell corporations and other large donors that they can't have any role or provide any financial support to the men and women who may one day need to judge their actions?
When Chief Justice Roberts writes that judges are not politicians, given how his court has ruled on voting rights, campaign finance and other matters it is hard to take him seriously. Many of his court's 5-4 conservative majority decisions have contained more than a whiff of politics.
And that remains a big part of the problem. The right has persuaded itself that the word "merit" is code for hard-line left-wing judges; it's really code for "no more hard-line right-wing radical judges." And who are we to tell corporations and other large donors that they can't have any role or provide any financial support to the men and women who may one day need to judge their actions?
When Chief Justice Roberts writes that judges are not politicians, given how his court has ruled on voting rights, campaign finance and other matters it is hard to take him seriously. Many of his court's 5-4 conservative majority decisions have contained more than a whiff of politics.
134
The terrible impacts of dark money, the Koch brothers, Adelson, and PAC's, and corporate giving as liberated by the SCOTUS Citizens United ruling have resulted in a badly broken political system which no longer is capable of representing the ordinary citizen. The blatant bias shown by the Roberts Court that spurred this effect to its current sickening state will go down in history as the biggest sell-out of the American people ever, matched only by the Bush v Gore decision. It's not mentioned often enough that a lot of these decisions were the blowback to the Obama campaign's incredible feedback from its supporters during the 2008 election with legitimate, appropriately sized donations. The umbrage with which the Supremes responded to that all too American outcome showed us who was boss.
The legacy of the Roberts Court is not helped by moral victories for the people made possible by splitting hairs on cases that the Court knows don't really matter. The big decisions have been made, and the hypocrisy magnified by throwing a few bones to the people noted.
The legacy of the Roberts Court is not helped by moral victories for the people made possible by splitting hairs on cases that the Court knows don't really matter. The big decisions have been made, and the hypocrisy magnified by throwing a few bones to the people noted.
196
Wait, there's more to the "good news is no news" thing than just politics.
Like the big "viral" news story today about the kid who walked with a 95-year-old man to see him home safely because the old-timer might be blown over by the wind ( http://goo.gl/nBMfB4 ).
Great job, kid, but in my day, we'd have done this as a matter of course and no one would have blinked. Nor would it make international news. Now even doing the right thing is a worldwide news flash. Welcome to 2015.
Like the big "viral" news story today about the kid who walked with a 95-year-old man to see him home safely because the old-timer might be blown over by the wind ( http://goo.gl/nBMfB4 ).
Great job, kid, but in my day, we'd have done this as a matter of course and no one would have blinked. Nor would it make international news. Now even doing the right thing is a worldwide news flash. Welcome to 2015.
94
24 hour news cycles is why everything that happens is news. We need feel good stories to offset the horrors we hear about every day most recently Katmandu, Baltimore etc etc etc.
I don't think you read the article. It is not the kid who posted the photo on Facebook. He didn't look for any recognition and he is just as overwhelmed as the person who did do the posting. It is good to hear the good things young people are doing because in the "news" we don't hear anything good about the actions of them.
1
"It’s been Roberts who’s led the court in castrating limits on the role of big money in other elections." Yep. Opens the door wide for even foreign money to flow in and "man"ipulate our elections, too. Sigh. Thinking about it hurts my head.
101
Whoopee indeed.
Where I live, anyone who is a citizen with a university degree, or 4 years of experience in civil service, or 8 years of experience in the private sector can apply to become a judge. Candidates must compete through a rigorous testing system similar to SAT or LSAT. The best performers are then admitted to the National Magistrate School where they receive a salary while they undergo an intensive 2.5 year judicial education. No elections, no corruption, just highly competent well-trained judges everyone holds in the highest esteem.
Roberts joined this decision because he knows it has good optics yet doesn't change a thing. There's hypocrisy in a group of appointed, unelected judges deciding it's OK for corruption to continue on the bench, just not their bench.
If SCOTUS were truly serious about removing corruption from the judiciary, they would find ways to hear cases that allowed them to declare unconstitutional any judicial election not publicly financed. They would also hear cases that allowed them to place limits on frivolous lawsuits, which is the root cause a bloated, corrupt judiciary in the first place.
America, the great bastion of democracy, risks reducing itself to a laughing stock in the eyes of the world unless the obscene amount of money that increasingly floods the political and judicial systems is stanched.
Where I live, anyone who is a citizen with a university degree, or 4 years of experience in civil service, or 8 years of experience in the private sector can apply to become a judge. Candidates must compete through a rigorous testing system similar to SAT or LSAT. The best performers are then admitted to the National Magistrate School where they receive a salary while they undergo an intensive 2.5 year judicial education. No elections, no corruption, just highly competent well-trained judges everyone holds in the highest esteem.
Roberts joined this decision because he knows it has good optics yet doesn't change a thing. There's hypocrisy in a group of appointed, unelected judges deciding it's OK for corruption to continue on the bench, just not their bench.
If SCOTUS were truly serious about removing corruption from the judiciary, they would find ways to hear cases that allowed them to declare unconstitutional any judicial election not publicly financed. They would also hear cases that allowed them to place limits on frivolous lawsuits, which is the root cause a bloated, corrupt judiciary in the first place.
America, the great bastion of democracy, risks reducing itself to a laughing stock in the eyes of the world unless the obscene amount of money that increasingly floods the political and judicial systems is stanched.
391
while I generally agree with the thrust of this comment, I have these comments:
1. there is a determined group that does not find corruption to be a problem, especially when it's on their side. this is as big a problem as the corruption itself.
2. our internal politics cannot be based on the eyes of the world. there are much worse viewpoints than being a laughing stock, for example being considered evil.
1. there is a determined group that does not find corruption to be a problem, especially when it's on their side. this is as big a problem as the corruption itself.
2. our internal politics cannot be based on the eyes of the world. there are much worse viewpoints than being a laughing stock, for example being considered evil.
2
@HeyNorris: Placing limits on "frivolous lawsuits" would be a gift to the 1% in the US, as it would allow the powerful to abuse the powerless without any recourse. And "frivolous lawsuits" are not the "root cause a [sic] bloated, corrupt judiciary in the first place". The root cause of the corrupt judiciary in the US is judicial elections in part, and a corrupt political system that appoints judges in part.
And what in the world are you talking about when your say, "There's hypocrisy in a group of appointed, unelected judges deciding it's OK for corruption to continue on the bench, just not their bench."? That doesn't even make any sense in the context of the decision being discussed. The Court held that judges could not solicit campaign contributions; it did not hold that "it's OK for corruption to continue on the bench".
You seem to know about the French judiciary, but you don't seem to understand the outcome of this case.
And what in the world are you talking about when your say, "There's hypocrisy in a group of appointed, unelected judges deciding it's OK for corruption to continue on the bench, just not their bench."? That doesn't even make any sense in the context of the decision being discussed. The Court held that judges could not solicit campaign contributions; it did not hold that "it's OK for corruption to continue on the bench".
You seem to know about the French judiciary, but you don't seem to understand the outcome of this case.
2
Unfortunately for the French, newly minted magistrates arrive with lots of book learning and little experience in real life. Not always but such judges tend to stick too close to the book without the judgement that experience in real life brings.
Imagine a newly minted lawyer in the US becoming a judge right out of law school.
I'd like a little more seasoning than that. However, the base of the system does make sense.
Imagine a newly minted lawyer in the US becoming a judge right out of law school.
I'd like a little more seasoning than that. However, the base of the system does make sense.
1
Is there not a statue outside some courts, a lady in a toga holding a pair of scales, was she wearing reading glasses?
Our country is not a shining light on equality before the law, and having judges run for their office and raise money to do so is dangerous to the rule of law. The lawyers and plaintiffs before the court should not be allowed to fund a judges election.
Judges should be reviewed and selected by a panel of their peers; otherwise they are merely politicians with greater power.
Our country is not a shining light on equality before the law, and having judges run for their office and raise money to do so is dangerous to the rule of law. The lawyers and plaintiffs before the court should not be allowed to fund a judges election.
Judges should be reviewed and selected by a panel of their peers; otherwise they are merely politicians with greater power.
152
You are so right...and their greater power can do even greater damage to not only the rule of law, but to our entire society as evidenced in recent SCOTUS decisions--read: acts of shame.
1
In protecting and extending the love-in between corporations and candidates (not in this ruling, thankfully, but in others), the Supreme Court has basically deemed that corruption is a form of free speech. Insane.
292
A thoughtful observer might consider that the current electoral system is hugely inefficient and expensive. As currently structured, elections for judges, senators, congressmen, presidents, and others at all levels of government require a convoluted process involving political campaigns, consultants, media and advertising placements, lobbyists, extensive travel, conventions, etc. -- all in the hopes of swaying voters to cast their ballots for the hopeful candidate.
A more insightful and efficient process would be to disintermediate the voter, and simply auction the office of choice to the highest bidder. For sales of seats in the U.S. Congress, for example, we envision the establishment of the Congressional Sales Office (CSO) to oversee the auction process. Candidates could then work full-time to obtain contributions from billionaires, millionaires, hedge fund managers, private equity tycoons, oil company executives, foreign governments and other interested parties. Politicians could dispense with the time-consuming nuisance of actually engaging with voters over stale chicken sandwiches and donuts, often after prolonged and uncomfortable travel.
The CSO would have the added benefit of expediting the sales process and shortening the election cycle. Of course, Congress would necessarily wish to establish the CSO Oversight Committee to ensure that any program to auction Congressional seats is conducted fairly and honestly, and is not subject to any corrupting influences.
A more insightful and efficient process would be to disintermediate the voter, and simply auction the office of choice to the highest bidder. For sales of seats in the U.S. Congress, for example, we envision the establishment of the Congressional Sales Office (CSO) to oversee the auction process. Candidates could then work full-time to obtain contributions from billionaires, millionaires, hedge fund managers, private equity tycoons, oil company executives, foreign governments and other interested parties. Politicians could dispense with the time-consuming nuisance of actually engaging with voters over stale chicken sandwiches and donuts, often after prolonged and uncomfortable travel.
The CSO would have the added benefit of expediting the sales process and shortening the election cycle. Of course, Congress would necessarily wish to establish the CSO Oversight Committee to ensure that any program to auction Congressional seats is conducted fairly and honestly, and is not subject to any corrupting influences.
248
"Congress would necessarily wish to establish the CSO Oversight Committee to ensure that any program to auction Congressional seats is conducted fairly and honestly, and is not subject to any corrupting influences."
Like the will of the people.
Like the will of the people.
48
Brilliant! The money collected wouldn't have to go to pay for political ads,campaign travel costs, stale chicken sandwiches and donuts, or candidates' gastroenterologists. It could be used to pay off the national debt.
2
Your suggested CSO scheme sounds like the epitome of free speech as defined by the Robber-ts Court.
1
One wonders that the campaign corruption connection to Congress and other elected offices isn't as blatantly obvious to Roberts.
... but then, he's never held elected office; he's only been appointed, and confirmed, by those who do.
... but then, he's never held elected office; he's only been appointed, and confirmed, by those who do.
116
There might be a few countries that have a worse functioning democracy than we do. Kazakhstan? Venezuela? Nigeria? Petro states, like us, but at least they don't embarrass themselves by claiming to be bastions of democracy.
Nothing will change until the American people demand public financing of elections. Our government, including at the state level, was full of crooks and con men well before Citizens United, the rallying cry of the always defensive Left.
It's simple, really. If politicians are intent on funneling money to their rich friends, via tax policy and gifts to the banks and oil companies, let's at least tell them to find another source for their lies. With merit based elections, we might be pleasantly surprised. Otherwise, say hello to more war, oligarchy, and planetary heating.
Nothing will change until the American people demand public financing of elections. Our government, including at the state level, was full of crooks and con men well before Citizens United, the rallying cry of the always defensive Left.
It's simple, really. If politicians are intent on funneling money to their rich friends, via tax policy and gifts to the banks and oil companies, let's at least tell them to find another source for their lies. With merit based elections, we might be pleasantly surprised. Otherwise, say hello to more war, oligarchy, and planetary heating.
315
No, Mike, nothing will change until a majority of voters see through the big money campaigns. Until then election finance will not change.
You make some excellent points, but I have to disagree in the matter of candidates for the judiciary. Campaign finance reform is not the issue. The issue is that judges should not be selected at the ballot box. It's a disastrous way to evaluate the competence of an individual to interpret and apply sometimes complicated legal principles. We don't select doctors, lawyers or CPAs by popular vote. Why do we demand a lesser standard for judges. They should have to compete, but competition should be on the basis of merit. Something similar to a civil service exam could cull the most promising candidates, who would then be expected to enter a training program & upon successful completion of same, would be eligible for an appointment by an impartial professional body. A judgeship should not be for sale and, until some clear headed judicial spark challenges Citizens United, the auction floor will remain open. But can't we keep some little, nostalgic part of our democracy free of the taint of the marketplace?
3
My reaction, which is admittedly not well-informed, is that it was just a plaintiff they didn't mind using to create an exception that basically proves the rule -- elections can be bought, candidates just have to be insiders enough to know how to do it in a way deemed acceptable.
220
It used to be that the Supreme Court was out ahead of public opinion. They often made people angry when they confirmed rights that the population wasn't quite ready for. Civil rights were granted very nearly at gunpoint. Roe v. Wade still makes some seethe.
Now it seems as though the controversial decisions are ones that undermine our rights. Citizens United turned corporations into people, and opened the floodgates that allowed big money to compromise politicians. Hobby Lobby demonstrated that not only are corporations people, but that they can also be baptized into the religion of their choice. If this continues, mergers will one day be defined as marriages, and I suppose branches will be considered children.
Yet the Court is behind the curve on same-sex marriage. They're not spearheading gay rights as much as they're playing catch-up, and trying to avoid looking as though most of the states had gotten it figured out before the highest court in the land had a clue.
It's also time that the court killed the death penalty. The reports of botched lethal-injections were bad enough, but the picture of Colorado's grotesque firing-squad chair, with its medieval straps and buckles and the sandbags stacked around to sop up the blood, looks like something from a psychotic nightmare.
The court should be protecting us from ourselves, not waiting for us to tell them what's fair and just.
Now it seems as though the controversial decisions are ones that undermine our rights. Citizens United turned corporations into people, and opened the floodgates that allowed big money to compromise politicians. Hobby Lobby demonstrated that not only are corporations people, but that they can also be baptized into the religion of their choice. If this continues, mergers will one day be defined as marriages, and I suppose branches will be considered children.
Yet the Court is behind the curve on same-sex marriage. They're not spearheading gay rights as much as they're playing catch-up, and trying to avoid looking as though most of the states had gotten it figured out before the highest court in the land had a clue.
It's also time that the court killed the death penalty. The reports of botched lethal-injections were bad enough, but the picture of Colorado's grotesque firing-squad chair, with its medieval straps and buckles and the sandbags stacked around to sop up the blood, looks like something from a psychotic nightmare.
The court should be protecting us from ourselves, not waiting for us to tell them what's fair and just.
488
It's so easy to refer to it antiseptically as "the court", as if it were a nation-girdling institution with tentacles into all our social mores, when in actuality it's nine unelected old guys who serve for life during good behavior, trying to sort out inconsistencies among lower courts while mostly leaving our social evolution to legislatures. (Oh, alRIGHT, six old guys and three thoroughly charming women of indeterminate age.)
It's not the U.S. Supreme Court's job to "protect us from ourselves". It's the job of those justices to apply existing law to circumstances, not to invent the law from whole cloth because a bare majority among NINE, for heaven's sake, believe that something is "fair and just".
I can think of little so close to tyranny that would justify such behavior as you romantically extol to be in our national interest.
It's not the U.S. Supreme Court's job to "protect us from ourselves". It's the job of those justices to apply existing law to circumstances, not to invent the law from whole cloth because a bare majority among NINE, for heaven's sake, believe that something is "fair and just".
I can think of little so close to tyranny that would justify such behavior as you romantically extol to be in our national interest.
6
@Richard Luettgen: "It's the job of those justices to apply existing law to circumstances, not to invent the law from whole cloth..."
Quite right. That is their job. And yet the conservatives on this Court ignored two important legal precedents when deciding Citizens United. They certainly don't believe that it 's their job to protect us from ourselves...or from corporate influence. Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas aren't inventing law. They appear to be cherry picking the ones they like and ignoring those they don't. As for tyranny, Montesquieu had it right: 'There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.'
Quite right. That is their job. And yet the conservatives on this Court ignored two important legal precedents when deciding Citizens United. They certainly don't believe that it 's their job to protect us from ourselves...or from corporate influence. Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas aren't inventing law. They appear to be cherry picking the ones they like and ignoring those they don't. As for tyranny, Montesquieu had it right: 'There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.'
144
Sandbags to sop up blood? No, they have much more absorbent media available, should that be their intent, which it isn't, as dead people don't bleed much, aside from not wearing plaid. The sandbags are there to absorb any stray shots so that if any do miss, they won't ricochet, potentially causing collateral damage. It's quite possible they could analyze said errant round to identify which weapon it came from, and thus identify the shooter who missed. This of course would result in a poor performance review, and could lead to him or her being fired from the firing squad, which sounds like one of those George Carlin questions, like "if it's self help why do we do it in groups?".
It's a pity they don't afford the soon to be departed the dignity of standing to face the squad, the choice of blindfold or not, and a cigarette. Oh, wait, there's no smoking in jail any more. I also believe they should afford one other options, like walking the plank, electric chair, or sitting in a garaged, running Prius until you starve to death.
Scalia reminds me of Col. Nathan R. Jessup near the end of "A Few Good Men", when confronted with his own wrongdoing, completely believes he was justified, declaring he'd do it again. He also reminds me of an old codger driving somewhere in Florida, running red lights and speeding because it's "his" road. All this argues for not just campaign contribution limits, but term limits as well.
It's a pity they don't afford the soon to be departed the dignity of standing to face the squad, the choice of blindfold or not, and a cigarette. Oh, wait, there's no smoking in jail any more. I also believe they should afford one other options, like walking the plank, electric chair, or sitting in a garaged, running Prius until you starve to death.
Scalia reminds me of Col. Nathan R. Jessup near the end of "A Few Good Men", when confronted with his own wrongdoing, completely believes he was justified, declaring he'd do it again. He also reminds me of an old codger driving somewhere in Florida, running red lights and speeding because it's "his" road. All this argues for not just campaign contribution limits, but term limits as well.
33
We gratefully eat crumbs today
So badly are Repubs in sway,
A Five-Four that's right
Though its content is lite,
From populists evokes "Hurray!"
So badly are Repubs in sway,
A Five-Four that's right
Though its content is lite,
From populists evokes "Hurray!"
157
Maybe Justice Roberts is back-tracking a little, realizing the Citizens United/McCutcheon Court he's presiding over is on track to leave the same reviled legacy as the Dred Scott Court ?
413
The Roberts court is worse than the Taney court. The Taney court was interested in keeping a minority in check a perpetuating existing power structures.. The Roberts court is intent on keeping the majority in check and securing that only a tiny minority have all the power in this country.
10
optimist!
2
or at least Plessy v Ferguson.
In that instance, corporate oligarchs showed a complete inability to guard anyone's interests, even their own.
It's no wonder that countries like China feel obligated to build up their military capabilities.