Sandra Day O'Connor speaks out against SCOTUS' Citizens United decision

[Brubricker]

Retired justice Sandra Day O'Connor said last week's Supreme Court decision striking down restrictions on corporate spending in elections will energize an "arms race" in judicial elections and be a "problem for maintaining an independent judiciary."

Since leaving the court in 2006, O'Connor has campaigned against the election of state and local judges, and she said Tuesday that "increasingly expensive and negative campaigns for judicial office erode both the impartiality of the judiciary and the public perception of them."

O'Connor lent her voice to the reverberations from the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which overturned two of the court's precedents and swept away decades of restrictions on how corporations and other special interest groups could spend their general treasuries on behalf of candidates.

.......

O'Connor confined her remarks about the decision to the affect it will have on the overwhelming number of states and localities that elect judges. Federal judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

"In invalidating some of the existing checks on campaign spending, the majority in Citizens United has signaled that the problem of campaign contributions in judicial elections might get considerably worse and quite soon," O'Connor said at a symposium at Georgetown Law Center. She noted that each election cycle brings new spending records, especially in state supreme court races that have become special-interest battlegrounds.

.......

The symposium at Georgetown, sponsored with the Aspen Institute, looked at the fallout from Citizens United and a case the court decided last year, Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. In Caperton, the court decided 5 to 4 that a West Virginia supreme court justice whose candidacy was aided by millions of dollars from a coal mining executive should have recused himself when the executive had a case before the court.

"I think these two cases should be a warning to states that continue to choose their judges through popular elections," O'Connor said.

She said the escalating campaigns will only make the judiciary more susceptible to special interests.

"I think today we can anticipate that labor unions and trial lawyers, for instance, might have the financial means to win one particular state judicial election, and maybe tobacco firms and energy companies have enough to win the next," she said. "And if both sides unleash their campaign spending monies without restrictions, then I think mutually assured destruction is the most likely outcome."

O'Connor: Corporate campaign funds could affect judiciary - washingtonpost.com

 

[rightwinger]

Conservative courts...

The gift that keeps on giving

 

[goldcatt]

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!

 

[Anguille]

Too bad she has retired. She is right about this issue.

 

[Xenophon]

Another judge who ruled based on 'feelings' as opposed to the Constitution.

Adios Sandra, enjoy the retirement.

 

[Luissa]

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?

 

[Avatar4321]

So we should ignore the Constitution because she is worried about the consequences of free speech. I am seriously glad she retired.

 

[Brubricker]

So we should ignore the Constitution because she is worried about the consequences of free speech.

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."

 

[Luissa]

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.

 

[Brubricker]

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.

 

[rdean]

When it comes to Corporations, Republicans want to give foreign companies status EQUAL to American born citizens, but when it comes to "real" people, such as those in Gitmo, they are "TERRIFIED" that these people will have constitutional rights.

The truth is the corporations will do much more damage. By sending America jobs overseas, they've already proven that. Could Republicans be bigger fools? Seriously?

 

[Dr.House]

Glad she's off the bench...

SCOTUS is no place for justices who believe their political and ideological beliefs should be consulted when ruling Constitutional cases...

 

[Yurt]

So we should ignore the Constitution because she is worried about the consequences of free speech. I am seriously glad she retired.

exactly

I think these two cases should be a warning to states that continue to choose their judges through popular elections," O'Connor said.

really, she is advocating that whomever holds the office that appoints judges, knows better than the voters. perhaps she wants to do away with voting at all, how about straight across the board appointments for every official government office that makes up the 3 branches. there will be no campaign, there will be votes, there will be only the person responsible for appointing judges, presidents, congressmen and senators......

tell me that no one is crazy enough to support such an idea

 

[jillian]

Glad she's off the bench...

SCOTUS is no place for justices who believe their political and ideological beliefs should be consulted when ruling Constitutional cases...

someone should tell that to scalia. o'connor was a brilliant jurist. even when you didn't agree with her result, you could respect her intellect.

 

[Dr.House]

Glad she's off the bench...

SCOTUS is no place for justices who believe their political and ideological beliefs should be consulted when ruling Constitutional cases...

someone should tell that to scalia.

I'm sure you have specific cases to back up this opinion...

 

[jillian]

Glad she's off the bench...

SCOTUS is no place for justices who believe their political and ideological beliefs should be consulted when ruling Constitutional cases...

someone should tell that to scalia.

I'm sure you have specific cases to back up this opinion...

you mean aside from the one that came down the other day?

and Ledbetter?

and Heller?

and bush v gore?

 

[elvis]

someone should tell that to scalia.

I'm sure you have specific cases to back up this opinion...

you mean aside from the one that came down the other day?

and Ledbetter?

and Heller?

and bush v gore?

at michigan law, they are teaching that ALL the justices vote with their politics (even though they aren't supposed to). do you find that to be true?

 

[Modbert]

I'm sure you have specific cases to back up this opinion...

House, haven't you figured out trolling only results in problems that can't always be solved at the end of the hour episodes?

 

[jillian]

at michigan law, they are teaching that ALL the justices vote with their politics (even though they aren't supposed to). do you find that to be true?

I think all justices vote in accordance with their 'philosophies'. Can those be considered political? I suppose sometimes. But some are more political than others.

Some, like scalia, don't even try to appear impartial.

 

[Dr.House]

someone should tell that to scalia.

I'm sure you have specific cases to back up this opinion...

you mean aside from the one that came down the other day?

and Ledbetter?

and Heller?

and bush v gore?

What did he state in those cases that was specifically political or ideological in nature?

I don't agree with your assessment at all...

I respect decisions made when the Constitution is used to determine standing, even if I disagree with the outcome...