....STOP SMUD FROM SPENDING RATEPAYER MONEY ON SCIENCE CENTER BUILDING NAMING RIGHTS.......SEE THE LOCAL FOCUS CAMPAIGN SECTION.....

Go Back   Fight Back In Sac > Main Category > The Courts
Register FAQForum Rules Members List Calendar Articles Media Center Downloads Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

The Courts This forum is for all topics related to local, state, or federal courts


Welcome to the Fight Back In Sac forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-14-2009, 09:22 AM
Coso Kid Coso Kid is offline
Enlistee
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 97
Default Buy a Judge program

Tom Teepen: Balancing money and justice




If the courts aren't telling you want you want to hear, why not just buy a judge who seems likely to change the tune?

In an especially egregious case of big money at play in what is supposed to be justice, Don Blankenship, chief executive of A.T. Massey Coal Co. in West Virginia, spent $3 million to defeat a state Supreme Court judge, Warren McGraw, and elect in his place Brent Benjamin. And sure enough, Benjamin was in the 3-2 majority that overturned a $50 million award that lower courts had granted a small coal company, which had claimed that fraud by Massey had put it out of business.

The U.S. Supreme Court has now ruled that even if no specific judicial misconduct is charged or found -- and none was in this matter -- where extraordinarily large sums are involved, judges should recuse themselves from cases involving political contributors.

The court defaulted to its common 5-4 split over the matter. Isn't impartial justice supposed to be a principle of liberals and conservatives alike? It is, but hard-core conservatism has increasingly bought into the proposition that money doesn't just talk but should be constitutionally sheltered under free-speech rights.

Hence the Republican opposition to restraints on political contributions in partisan politics and hence, too, this latest high court split, with swing conservative Anthony Kennedy joining the liberals.

Kennedy emphasized the exceptional nature of the campaign-funding intrusion in the West Virginia case and held that ordinary political contributions should not be similarly suspect, but Chief Justice John Roberts, in dissent, predicts gushers of appeals. He is not necessarily alarmist.

Just what is an extraordinary amount? Can it be bid up? Where specific litigants may not be buying in, what about the disproportionate influence well-heeled special interests can buy?

Maybe the electorate could become its own special interest.

TOM TEEPEN, COX NEWSPAPERS
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.