That was one Florida Judge running for re-election back in 2002 (see par. 46). The Supreme Court heard argument this week on whether judges running for election in Florida should be able to personally solicit campaign contributions.
From SCOTUSBlog:
If there is one thing that the Roberts Court seems consistently
willing to protect, it’s speech – even controversial or unpopular speech
like violent video games, protests at the funeral of a fallen soldier,
lies about receiving military medals, and dog-fighting videos. And for
the Court’s five more conservative Justices, this enthusiasm for the
First Amendment extends to the campaign-finance arena. In recent years, a
closely divided Court has struck down a ban on independent campaign
spending by corporations and unions as well as the overall caps on how
much one person can contribute to campaigns for federal office. But
yesterday’s oral argument in Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar,
a Tampa lawyer’s challenge to a Florida rule that prohibited her from
personally contacting would-be donors to ask them to contribute to her
campaign for a job as a trial judge, hinted that, when it comes to the
First Amendment, judges might be different. After all, some Justices
suggested, it would be undignified for judges – who, Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg said, are supposed to be “above the fray” – to go around asking
people for money.
Arguing on behalf of Lanell Williams-Yulee, attorney Andrew Pincus
told the nine Justices that Florida had punished his client for sending
out form letters asking for contributions that were “completely” legal
in Florida. And if the Florida rule prohibiting personal solicitations
by potential judges is really intended to protect the would-be donors
from feeling coerced to contribute, Pincus argued, then at the very
least there should be no ban for mass mailings like the one at issue in
this case, which are so impersonal that they don’t place any pressure on
the people who receive them. But Justice Anthony Kennedy countered that
Pincus’s proposed rule would make it difficult for courts to draw a
line between what is and is not allowed. There are “all sorts of
gradations,” he told Pincus. What about a letter from a potential judge
to one person? What about a letter to five people?
Other Justices, such as Justice Antonin Scalia, suggested that there
was more to the rule than just preventing coercion – for example, an
interest in judges being dignified. Scalia observed that “there’s stuff
we don’t let judges do” – such as publish op-eds in newspapers to
respond to criticisms of their decisions.
Pincus may have found more success with his argument that the overall
scheme of the Florida rule doesn’t make sense. After all, for example,
although would-be judges can’t contact potential donors to ask for
money, they can send notes directly to donors to thank them for their
contributions, and their campaign committees can reach out on their
behalf. The additional step of banning personal solicitations by judges,
he contended, doesn’t actually make any difference. Some of the Court’s
more liberal Justices were skeptical, arguing that the extra personal
touch does make a difference when you are asking for money.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that it’s “very, very, very rare” for a
lawyer to turn her down when she makes a request. Getting a signed
letter or personal phone call from a judge, she suggested, would be more
likely to lead to a contribution than a letter signed by the judge’s
campaign committee. Justice Stephen Breyer echoed these concerns,
telling Pincus that his “instinct is” that when someone else writes the
letter, it doesn’t have the same effect.
But that argument seemed to find more traction with some of the
Court’s more conservative Justices. When Barry Richard, arguing on
behalf of the Florida Bar, emphasized that the Florida rule was designed
to cut the direct link between a would-be judge and donor that creates
corruption when a donor expects to receive something for his
contribution, Justice Scalia rejected that premise. Once you can send a
thank-you note directly to a donor to thank him for the campaign
contribution, Scalia insisted, that’s no longer true, because there is
a direct link. And Justice Samuel Alito asked Richard (somewhat
rhetorically) to explain what additional damage would result from
Williams-Yulee’s direct contact with would-be donors, compared with
having a campaign committee send out fundraising letters which
specifically say that the judge gave the committee the donor’s name,
that the committee will let the judge know if a contribution is made,
and that the judge will then write a thank-you note.
Meantime, there were protestors
in the High Court yesterday:
A handful of spectators disrupted the opening of Wednesday
morning’s Supreme Court session by rising one by one from their seats
to shout protests over the
Citizens United decision and other populist themes on the fifth anniversary of the controversial ruling.
Just after the Justices had taken the bench at 10 a.m., and as they
were about to announce opinions, a woman stood from her seat near the
back of the courtroom and said, “I rise on behalf of democracy.” She
continued with a mention of Citizens United, the 2010 ruling that removed limits on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions. Three Supreme Court police officers quickly converged on her, causing a loud commotion as they pushed through an area of the courtroom where single wooden chairs are in use, forcefully subdued her, and then removed her from the courtroom.
As what at first seemed like the lone demonstrator was removed, Chief
Justice John G. Roberts Jr. quipped, “Our second order of business this
morning …” to laughs from the crowded courtroom.
But before he could finish that thought, a second demonstrators stood
and said, “One person, one vote.” It was perhaps a continuation of the Citizens United
theme, or a reference to a key phrase from the Court’s voting rights
jurisprudence. As the second protestor was being approached by officers,
a third and a fourth one stood and uttered similar lines.
The Chief Justice was heard to mutter, “Oh, please.”
As more officers entered the courtroom to deal with those protestors, a man in a back corner stood and said, “We are the ninety-nine percent,” a populist slogan referring to those not in the wealthiest one percent
of the nation. After he delivered the line, this protestor looked
around nervously as there were no police officers immediately near him.
As another protestor rose near the same corner, the Chief Justice
felt obliged to come to the aid of the police force. “We have a couple
of more over here,” Roberts said, pointing to the corner.
After six or seven demonstrators had said their lines and were
removed, which had taken several minutes, it appeared the protest was
over.
“We will now continue with our tradition of having open court in the
Supreme Court,” Chief Justice Roberts said. He announced that Justice
Sonia Sotomayor would deliver the first opinion of the day, and the
rhythms of the courtroom soon settled back to normalcy.
8 comments:
A system where judges are elected is completely idiotic. It makes a complete mockery of the ideal of an independent and impartial judiciary. Most of the political donations come from attorneys and firms who practice in that court. It is not much different from having attorneys pick up Judge Sepe's restaurant tab.
An a system in which judges are appointed will always be above the political fray? The vetting process is always apolitical? The only way to to be above the political fray is to put the names of the potential judges in a hat, and have a monkey pull out the names one by one until the spots are filled.
Why do you hate democracy? Shame on you.
Instead of not letting the judges ask, how about a rule which prevents an attorney from donating to any judge who they have an open pending case with? would save me a lot of $
"Oh please."
judges should not be former lawyers. Judging is a separate profession and should be completely separated from lawyering. A separate professional civil servant position. Until computers can do the judging.
Can/Should Computers Replace Judges?
"The most important inquiry in jurisprudence has always seemed to me to be whether it is
possible to have the rule of law rather than the rule of persons."
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1128&context=facultyworkingpapers
If we can put a man on the moon, we can design a computer to replace a judge.
I believe Brady. GO PATS!!!
Not even Giselle bought that B.S.
Post a Comment