Discussion in 'Politics' started by Brubricker, Jan 26, 2010.
O'Connor: Corporate campaign funds could affect judiciary - washingtonpost.com
The gift that keeps on giving
I always liked O'Connor, she's a straight shooter with a good pragmatic view and wielded her power on the court like a maestro. Good for her!
Too bad she has retired. She is right about this issue.
Another judge who ruled based on 'feelings' as opposed to the Constitution.
Adios Sandra, enjoy the retirement.
So you think it alright that corporations can pretty much buy judges now?
So we should ignore the Constitution because she is worried about the consequences of free speech. I am seriously glad she retired.
So tell us some more about the consequences of free speech. If I'm standing before a court and I don't like the way the judge is handling my case, I can just donate to his campaign fund and he'll be forced to remove himself from the case due to conflict of interest. I can choose my own judge this way. So let's say I get a judge I like and I win my case. When my opponent tries to appeal the judgment I can just donate campaign money to all the appeals court judges and PRESTO! The case is dead. Nobody can hear the appeal because the appeals court judges all have a conflict of interest with me.
No legislature in the entire country can make it illegal for me to do it because all of sudden it has become my first amendment right to game the system this way. These are the "consequences of free speech."
I don't know if this in the article, but in one district a judge raised $14,000 million for his campaign. I see something wrong in that.
Alabama Supreme Court race. I live in Alabama. You mention it in these parts and nobody even bats an eye.
Separate names with a comma.