A Wedge to Abolish Democratic Elections
June 10, 2009
Many of us warned that the Caperton case would be used as a wedge to abolish all democratic judicial elections. Right on cue, the Washington Post today calls for states to “rethink judicial elections altogether” in light the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling this week to federalize recusal standards for state judges:
“States should consider abandoning elections for a merit selection system that better insulates judges from the corrosive influence of money and politics.”
It’s important to note that the donations to West Virginia Justice Brent Benjamin in question were legal independent expenditures, not campaign contributions. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his dissent, “Justice Benjamin and his campaign had no control over how this money was spent.” (his emphasis) Roberts also points out (unlike the Post), that the trial bar spent $2 million in an independent campaign to defeat Benjamin.
The Post offers no evidence (other than this decision) of the “corrosive influence of money” on judicial elections, so let’s turn to Justice at Stake – the campaign bankrolled by billionaire hedge fund kingpin George Soros which lobbies to abolish democratic judicial elections across America. The group told Post reporter Robert Barnes that state Supreme Court candidates “raised almost $168 million from 2000 to 2007, nearly double the amount raised during the 1990s.”
Sure sounds alarming. But wait a minute. Between 2000 and 2008, presidential candidates raised over $3.1 billion (thanks opensecrets.org) – nearly double the $1.6 billion raised in the six elections dating back to 1976! Barack Obama himself raised considerably more than George W. Bush and Al Gore combined in 2000 and about what Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Bob Dole raised in the 1992 and 1996 races. Where is all the gnashing of teeth from the Post about the “corrosive influence of money” on the presidency? And how exactly will a “merit” system prevent the spending of millions to remove or retain judges in retention elections? You’ll still have the “corrosive influence of money” – but with special interests rather than voters deciding who sits on the bench.
As Chief Justice Roberts argued so eloquently, the Caperton decision is just another example that extreme cases make bad laws. It’s not an argument to abolish the right of citizens to choose who will control one-third of their state government.
Posted by Dan Pero in the categories: Supreme Court
One Response to “A Wedge to Abolish Democratic Elections”
There is no “fool proof way” to select, elect or appoint and seat Justices and judges without some risk of putting an unprincipled, unscrupulous, self serving, “special interest puppet good ole boy or girl” on the bench. Considering the “stakes in the game” and the undeniable corrupting power of big money –, in BOTH camps it is in fact a “crap shoot”.
However given the only two options we have to seat judges: #1.”behind closed doors via “merit selection” at the hands of their “fox guarding the chicken house” legal clique” cronies or
#2. being voted into power by a vote of the majority electorate, #2 is by far the best gamble. That is simply because there is at least some “transparency”, openness and electorate involvement in the process. Allowing the legal profession –, which already has a stranglehold on America’s societal jugular to further tighten that stranglehold is the invitation to “societal suicide”. The fact that frivolous lawsuit industry lawyers can theoretically and legally” sue God Almighty into Insolvency -, in just the “pre-trial discovery phase of their charades -, and the fact that we have been unable to loosen their stranglehold on our financial jugulars -, should “sound the warning sirens” on the folly of letting “judges and lawyers” seat judges and Justices.
Ivan L. Fail (Veteran of two malicious, frivolous lawsuits)
#1 by a mob enforcer, contract killer and loan shark
#2 by a serial litigant, professional plaintiff in
Wilson County (Fredonia) Kansas Case #2006-CV-25
which has cost another defendant and I around
$60,000.00 in attorney fees —, thus far
846 South Linden Ave
Sparta, Missouri 65753