Monday, February 01, 2010

Monday morning...


As you all know, I'm not a fan of judicial elections. Tony Mauro writes that the recent Citizens United decision might kill judicial elections:

For years now, judicial reform groups have more or less resigned themselves to the reality that the public likes to elect its state judges and will fight any effort to appoint them instead.
The U.S. Supreme Court's Jan. 21 decision in
Citizens United v. FEC may have altered that sober truth -- or at least has given reformers a glimmer of hope that it might. By supersizing possible corporate domination of judicial elections, the thinking goes, the Supreme Court's decision may finally make the public see how unseemly the elections are -- and move toward merit-based selection as an alternative.
"There is a silver lining to the decision," said Ohio Chief Justice Thomas Moyer, who has taken the lead in seeking change in Ohio's elective system for judges. "For those of us who have been trying to impress upon the public the deleterious effects of money in these elections, it helps us make the point that we need to get the money out."
"The time is now for change," said Rebecca Kourlis, former Colorado Supreme Court justice and executive director of the
Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver. "I believe we can revitalize the merit-selection movement."
Kourlis spoke at a Georgetown University Law Center
conference on judicial elections convened on Jan. 26 by retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. In retirement, working with Kourlis and others, O'Connor has become a merit-selection evangelist who energizes the movement by her sheer presence. O'Connor's calendar is dotted with meetings with local good-government groups across the country aimed at jump-starting the effort to change the way state judges are chosen. Currently, O'Connor said, more than 80 percent of state judges have to win a political election to gain or retain their seats.


Anonymous said...

Electing judges is a horrible practice, but Citizens will have no impact in Florida. People in South Florida accept that there will always be some hanky-panky on the part of elected officials, judges included. As long as it is not too widespead, is not too costly on taxpayers and does not interfere with the collection of trash, public corruption and undue influence peddling will be an accepted annoyance.

Anonymous said...

are you serious that you think that people will wake up and realize how flawed judicial elections are? these are the american people you are talking about. the same people who line up to buy Sarah Palins book and rail against health care reform by saying "keep government away from my Medicare".

people in this country are too busy reading tmz and watching stupid tv shows to give a fuck about anything serious like corporate influence of politics

Anonymous said...

You're right - I could care less about corporate influence on politics.

What I have been following lately is Rip Torn's arrest. He's a fantastic actor with a bit of a problem.

Also, the legal issues involving who owns the rights to "Who Dat!" are very compelling.

Anonymous said...

So your response to people who believe the healthcare bill is a bad idea is simply to call them stupid and dumb. It might surprise you to learn that there are good reasons not to let the federal government come between patients and doctors.

South Florida Lawyers said...

Reason #1 -- that's what insurance and pharmaceutical companies are for!