A bit of hypocrisy Chief Justice John Roberts???

[nat4900]

In today's decision, Chief Justice Roberts upheld a ban against judicial candidates directly soliciting contributions...the ban is necessary to stop the appearance of corruption among judges.

Chief Justice Roberts’ reasoning: The “mere possibility that judges’ decisions might be motivated by the desire to repay campaign contributions” will undermine public faith in our courts.

Although I concur with Roberts' rationale, does anyone else detect just a tiny bit of hypocrisy in his reasoning versus his decision regarding Citizen United?

 

[BluesLegend]

I'm fine holding judges to a higher standard of avoiding even the appearance of corruption. Bill and Hillary wouldn't be in deep shit now if they had.

 

[nat4900]

I'm fine holding judges to a higher standard of avoiding even the appearance of corruption. Bill and Hillary wouldn't be in deep shit now if they had.

Well, I partially agree about the Clintons....

But I guess you're fine with openly corrupting those who make the laws?

Whether Roberts realizes it or not, he just set major precedence to any future challenge to Citizen United....and there WILL BE challenges in the very near future.

 

[BluesLegend]

I'm fine holding judges to a higher standard of avoiding even the appearance of corruption. Bill and Hillary wouldn't be in deep shit now if they had.

Well, I partially agree about the Clintons....

But I guess you're fine with openly corrupting those who make the laws?

Whether Roberts realizes it or not, he just set major precedence to any future challenge to Citizen United....and there WILL BE challenges in the very near future.

The SCOTUS restored some much needed balance with the Citizen United decision. Democrat politicians being corrupt lying bastards had established a taxpayer money kickback scheme with public sector unions that would make a mob boss blush.

 

[Sonny Clark]

In today's decision, Chief Justice Roberts upheld a ban against judicial candidates directly soliciting contributions...the ban is necessary to stop the appearance of corruption among judges.

Chief Justice Roberts’ reasoning: The “mere possibility that judges’ decisions might be motivated by the desire to repay campaign contributions” will undermine public faith in our courts.

Although I concur with Roberts' rationale, does anyone else detect just a tiny bit of hypocrisy in his reasoning versus his decision regarding Citizen United?

Well, politics is funded by special interests, the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential. We even have a Lobbyists' controlled U.S. Congress. So, why does he consider it wrong for judges, but says not a single word about professional politicians? Vey strange, and very puzzling.

 

[nat4900]

The SCOTUS restored some much needed balance with the Citizen United decision. Democrat politicians being corrupt lying bastards had established a taxpayer money kickback scheme with public sector unions that would make a mob boss blush.

Ahhha.....then why not ban ALL such contributions rather than WIDEN the net of corruption???

 

[OKTexas]

In today's decision, Chief Justice Roberts upheld a ban against judicial candidates directly soliciting contributions...the ban is necessary to stop the appearance of corruption among judges.

Chief Justice Roberts’ reasoning: The “mere possibility that judges’ decisions might be motivated by the desire to repay campaign contributions” will undermine public faith in our courts.

Although I concur with Roberts' rationale, does anyone else detect just a tiny bit of hypocrisy in his reasoning versus his decision regarding Citizen United?

No.

 

[BluesLegend]

The SCOTUS restored some much needed balance with the Citizen United decision. Democrat politicians being corrupt lying bastards had established a taxpayer money kickback scheme with public sector unions that would make a mob boss blush.

Ahhha.....then why not ban ALL such contributions rather than WIDEN the net of corruption???

Our country is becoming more corrupted not less and politicians are at the root of the corruption. Some say its time to refresh the US Constitution to deal with this problem.

 

[Iceweasel]

I fail to see it. How should it be illegal for a group of people to pool their money and support causes they believe in? What law should prevent that and why?

 

[The Rabbi]

In today's decision, Chief Justice Roberts upheld a ban against judicial candidates directly soliciting contributions...the ban is necessary to stop the appearance of corruption among judges.

Chief Justice Roberts’ reasoning: The “mere possibility that judges’ decisions might be motivated by the desire to repay campaign contributions” will undermine public faith in our courts.

Although I concur with Roberts' rationale, does anyone else detect just a tiny bit of hypocrisy in his reasoning versus his decision regarding Citizen United?

I find more than a tiny bit of stupidity in your post. CU of course had nothng to dowith courts.

 

[The Rabbi]

The SCOTUS restored some much needed balance with the Citizen United decision. Democrat politicians being corrupt lying bastards had established a taxpayer money kickback scheme with public sector unions that would make a mob boss blush.

Ahhha.....then why not ban ALL such contributions rather than WIDEN the net of corruption???

Idiot. The point is to open the process, not restrict it. Only incumbents and their stooges are in favor of restricting contributions.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I fail to see it. How should it be illegal for a group of people to pool their money and support causes they believe in? What law should prevent that and why?

I don't see anything in this ruling that prevents this.

 

[The Rabbi]

I fail to see it. How should it be illegal for a group of people to pool their money and support causes they believe in? What law should prevent that and why?

I don't see anything in this ruling that prevents this.

He didnt say it did. Please try to keep up.

 

[nodoginnafight]

With all due respect (and believe me, that ain't much) i'll wait to hear from the person I was engaging.

 

[The Rabbi]

With all due respect (and believe me, that ain't much) i'll wait to hear from the person I was engaging.

Hopefully he ignores your stupid ass. Go back and read what was written.

 

[nat4900]

No.

Take care of your seeing-eye dog

 

[nat4900]

fail to see it. How should it be illegal for a group of people to pool their money and support causes they believe in? What law should prevent that and why?

Because politicians should count VOTES...and NOT Donors.

 

[nat4900]

find more than a tiny bit of stupidity in your post. CU of course had nothng to dowith courts.

As expected, from a moron like you, rabbi.....you miss the entire point.....Here I'll make it so simple that even a dimwit like you can understand it:

WHY SHOULD SOME ELECTED OFFICIALS ( congress folks) BE ALLOWED TO TAKE DONATIONS...BUT OTHERS (judges) CANNOT?

 

[nat4900]

Why is it so damn hard for right wingers to call a fellow right winger a hypocrite????

I call lots of corrupt democrats hypocrites...trust me, its easy.

 

[dblack]

Roberts is a two-bit whore.