Today at the Forum: Judges and their contributors

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Judges and their contributors

"Be careful what you ask for," warns an editorial in the Kentucky edition of Friday's Enquirer that talks about a Kentucky Supreme Court decision that loosened up campaign rules for judicial candidates. As the editorial noted, a recent New York Times report on Ohio Supreme Court justices found they voted in line with campaign contributors 70 percent of the time.

5 Comments:

at 8:48 PM, October 12, 2006

Anonymous said...

And Terrence O'Donnell is the worst. But he is a republican, so therefore he will be reelected. And therefore business interests will have an advantage over average citizens.

Think it's really only about abortion? Think again, abortion is just the red meat wedge issue business interests use to get people to vote against their economic self interest.

Try googling Clarence Thomas and Lochner vs. New York. Even Bork wouldn't go there.

Put in today’s terms, Holmes’ dissent in Lochner is a bit like Clarence Thomas’ concurrence in United States v. Lopez 202 in which Thomas argued for a drastic reduction in the federal government’s constitutional powers to regulate interstate commerce; his arguments, if accepted, would call into question the constitutionality of much of the modern regulatory state. Thomas’s extremely narrow view of federal power, while lying outside the boundaries of conventional professional assumptions, nevertheless has some resonance in conservative political circles and in the larger political culture.

at 1:22 AM, October 13, 2006

Anonymous said...

The depth of corruption in Ohio courts hasn't evenbeen scratched. The Ohio Supreme Court governs attorney discipline, which has conveniently ignored the lawyers / elected officials involved in these corruption scandals. The Court has made special rules to allow itself to receive perks in direct defiance of our state constitution which forbades such perks as the new cars they gifted themselves. The court accepts donations fromthe very judges inthe visiting judge program who receive their compensation from the state Supreme Court. Make a donation - get hired to hear cases. It's called "pay-to-play."

at 9:10 PM, October 13, 2006

Anonymous said...

The Enquirer is well aware of all of the issues I enumerated - it is common knowledge. The problemis ,who rules if the court's rules are constitutional inthe state of Ohio? The Supreme Court of Ohio. So the only recourse is the power of the press - and in Cincinnati...

at 4:03 PM, October 14, 2006

Anonymous said...

Judges seem like something the average person need never concern themselves with. But the reality is, you could end up with an insurance company who refuses to pay a claim, a child severely injured in an unsafe vehicle that needs round the clock care, or a child who has had her intestines sucked out by a hotel hot tub with a faulty drain cover. If you think some of the OH Supreme Court decisions outlined in the NY Times article sjowed a procorporation bias at the expense of the average citizens, you need to check out some of Bush's most egregious nominations. Our most basic rights are at stake and the health and well being of the American people.

Michael B. Wallace, a politically well-connected Jackson, Miss., attorney is a lawyer with a career-long antipathy to such basic civil rights touchstones as the Voting Rights Act and single-member districts. He might be the only appeals circuit nominee who has received a unanimous "not qualified" rating from the ABA's standing committee on the federal judiciary.

Priscilla Owens is a former lawyer for the oil and gas industry. She reflexively favors manufacturers over consumers, employers over workers and insurers over sick people. One of her more egregiuous cases and the foot dragging involved in that decision resulted in the death of a severely injured child who required round-the-clock care.

And then there is Brett Kavanaugh, an inexperienced, but ambitious member of the Bush administration nominated for the D.C. Circuit. He has spent most of his legal career in partisan political positions. As Staff Secretary, Kavanaugh has been involved in Bush’s use of 750 Presidential signing statements designed to reserve for the President alone the power to choose whether to enforce laws passed by Congress.

For excellent coverage of presidential signing statements see the Boston Globes series of articles.

Bush cites authority to bypass FEMA law
Signing statement is employed again

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/10/06/bush_cites_authority_to_bypass_fema_law/

To shield FEMA from cronyism, Congress established new job qualifications for the agency's director in last week's homeland security bill. The law says the president must nominate a candidate who has ``a demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management" and ``not less than five years of executive leadership."

Bush signed the homeland-security bill on Wednesday morning. Then, hours later, he issued a signing statement saying he could ignore the new restrictions. Bush maintains that under his interpretation of the Constitution, the FEMA provision interfered with his power to make personnel decisions.

Bush challenges hundreds of laws
President cites powers of his office

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

I don't have time to go into more but if interested you should also research Charles Pickering who was installed through a recess appointment.

at 10:59 AM, October 15, 2006

Anonymous said...

and, they appointed michael barrett,former head ofthe hamilton county republican party,which was ordered to repay 50K in illegally funneled campaign contributions to joe deters and his convicted buddieswhile inthe state treasurer's office. barrett - as chair - wasnever investigated by teh supreme court's disciplianry counsel for his participation and the supreme courts report to congress regarding his record as an attorney failed to disclose complaint made againsthim. the enq did not report the upcoming hearings on his appointment - instead, reporting only after the fact. persons wo wanted to teestify to these issues before congress lost their opportunity to forewarn barrett's conduct.

Previous Posts

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Judges and their contributors

5 Comments: