• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Judges are for Sale

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
No, not just my opinion. This is making headline news in publications such as TIME: Judges Are for Sale -- and Special Interests Are Buying

This sounds exactly like the aftershocks of the epicenter involving SCOTUS decision that allowed corporate access to our government, which was never designed for corporate access, but was designed to be a government Of the People, By the People, and For the People.

The root of the issue is integrity. That's doing the right thing no matter what the incentive might be to do otherwise. The problem is, most people can be at least somewhat swayed. That's why allowing corporate access to government was a VERY BAD IDEA. At the very least, it's lent credence to the concept of judges repaying election contributions with decisions in favor in their supporters.

There's legal action known as "recusing" wherein a judge with any conflict of interest in a case can, and most certainly recuse themselves so as to ensure whoever does preside over an issue has no conflict of interest. As the article states: "Why does all this matter? Because as money floods into judicial elections, we are getting courts that are filled with judges whose first loyalty is not to justice — or to the general public — but to insurance companies, big business and other special interests."

Hmm... The article offers some interesting ideas for solutions to this growing problem. What ideas might you have?

Regardless, something must be done: "The American ideal of justice requires neutral judges, whose only commitment is to the law. Judicial elections that are dominated by special interest money make a mockery of that ideal."

That's something NONE of us can afford.
 

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
All of my life, I have heard that we, as a nation, have the best judges and politicians that money can buy. No, I did not intend that as a joke.
At least here in the South, we mostly have honest politicians and judges. "Honest" is defined as one that, once bought, stays bought.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
All of my life, I have heard that we, as a nation, have the best judges and politicians that money can buy. No, I did not intend that as a joke.
At least here in the South, we mostly have honest politicians and judges. "Honest" is defined as one that, once bought, stays bought.

If I had to judge a cupcake contest on this basis, I'd cry foul.

Perhaps this is the time when we return to a government where our best judges and politicians are NOT bought, but that they're holding to the principles upon which our nation was founded!

I would re-define "honest" as "he who hold's true." To whatever. Whenever. Forever.
 

jbone

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,230
Location
WA
All part of the disease, judicial activism that is.
 
Last edited:

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
If I had to judge a cupcake contest on this basis, I'd cry foul.

Perhaps this is the time when we return to a government where our best judges and politicians are NOT bought, but that they're holding to the principles upon which our nation was founded!

I would re-define "honest" as "he who hold's true." To whatever. Whenever. Forever.

First of all, you would have to find men and women to fill the role of judge who are totally incorruptible. Have you never heard the saying, "Everyone has a price"? For some, it is money; for others, it is some sort of physical gratification; and for still others, it is political ideology.

Considering that very few people in this day and age have a sufficient grasp of history (present company excluded) to even begin to understand the principles on which our nation was founded, good luck in finding enough people to fill the role of judge. Maybe when we return to teaching real, versus revisionist, history in our public schools and universities, we will start finding more of these people.

Yes, I have become somewhat cynical as I get older. Right now, I fear the same fate for our nation as that which befell the Roman Empire. Not attack from without, but decay from within.
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
Whenever they've had integrity. :enlightenment:

Even before the Roman Empire, politicians and judges were influenced and/or bought. Nothing new, other then the technology to make the masses aware; then the opportunity for the politician/judge to spin it their way.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
[snip]

Hmm... The article offers some interesting ideas for solutions to this growing problem. What ideas might you have?


Firstly, this is part of the reason that there are judges that have lifetime positions - not stating that it curbs special interests.
Second, a ban on all members of Congress, Executive, and Judicial branch from accepting money, gifts, future gigs, not permitted to work for any organization until ten years past leaving office, etc. (you get my point). Republicans want to amend the Constitution with something, start there.

This second part is a huge one. I think that members of Congress have been pushed from their states, and that the whole political process has been undermined by special interests. I double dog dare them to pass, at minimum, a Law that bans the above I have outlined. I know, there are always loopholes. So, as part of filling that loophole, the Law has at its beginning a thoroughly laid out 'spirit' of that Law, so that there are no misunderstandings. And the person who breaks the Law is subject to ten years or more in prison.


[snip] "The American ideal of justice requires neutral judges, whose only commitment is to the law. Judicial elections that are dominated by special interest money make a mockery of that ideal."

That's something NONE of us can afford.

The crux is highlighted. Can you please, for all who are reading, lay out to us what that entails - the meaning, please. Let's figure out why there seems to be an issue here.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Firstly, this is part of the reason that there are judges that have lifetime positions - not stating that it curbs special interests.

Lifetime positions may close one door to special interests, but it opens another. The only relief is integrity. The problem is, Congress did not appoint the last two Supreme Court Justices based on their integrity.

Second, a ban on all members of Congress, Executive, and Judicial branch from accepting money, gifts, future gigs, not permitted to work for any organization until ten years past leaving office, etc. (you get my point).

Since they get a life-time pension equal to their pay while serving as a member of Congress, let's make this a lifetime restriction. If they don't like it, they can waive their retirement the moment they start drawing either salary, benefits, or future promise thereof from any entity.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Lifetime positions may close one door to special interests, but it opens another. The only relief is integrity. The problem is, Congress did not appoint the last two Supreme Court Justices based on their integrity.

I am shocked that you would leave this to such an arbitrary thing as "integrity."

Since they get a life-time pension equal to their pay while serving as a member of Congress, let's make this a lifetime restriction. If they don't like it, they can waive their retirement the moment they start drawing either salary, benefits, or future promise thereof from any entity.

Members of Congress should not receive lifetime pensions. Will it curb all of this...no. Regardless of pension, the Congress-person should be barred for a period of time - five years? - from working for any special interest groups. Now, since the Congress-person, prior to being elected will be well aware of this, they have no cause for complaint when they run for the job.

Let's face it...that ain't going to happen. It's a nice thought though.
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
I am shocked that you would leave this to such an arbitrary thing as "integrity."

Actually, integrity is something that we, as the "public" should demand from our elected officials. IMHO, most of the ills of this country today can be traced directly back to a complete and total lack of integrity (along with a few other character flaws) in elected officials and heads of corporations.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
I am shocked that you would leave this to such an arbitrary thing as "integrity."

Integrity is hardly arbitrary. It's the glue that binds the trust among members of the military. Without it, unit cohesion disintegrates. Without integrity, governments slowly die.

Members of Congress should not receive lifetime pensions.

Agreed. They, as well as the President and the justices of the Supreme Court (as should most government employees) should all be on the same pension plan as those who fight their battles on the front lines i.e. members of the services.

Let's face it...that ain't going to happen. It's a nice thought though.

If enough of us get fed up, it'll happen.
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
A few come to mind. Just to get their names out there:

Cato, judge
Thomas More, judge
Ron Paul, politi...well, not really

I don't doubt there are some that were not bought/purchased; but throughout history, politicans, judges etc have been influenced by businesses/individuals....thats politics. :confused:
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Actually, integrity is something that we, as the "public" should demand from our elected officials. IMHO, most of the ills of this country today can be traced directly back to a complete and total lack of integrity (along with a few other character flaws) in elected officials and heads of corporations.

Integrity is a character flaw? Well, then, it appears we need to hire individuals who have less character flaws. Now the next problem at hand...identifying who does, and who does not have character flaws.
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
Integrity is a character flaw? Well, then, it appears we need to hire individuals who have less character flaws. Now the next problem at hand...identifying who does, and who does not have character flaws.

No, lack of is a character flaw. They chose to behave without integrity.

As for identifying, that is why what they say and what they do are so important ... for example, Justice Kagan ... now that is a study in lack of integrity ... she asserted in her confirmation hearing that 2A/Heller was settled law, then we see her dissent in the second go-round on Heller/DC. Brilliant lack of integrity! (/sarcasm)
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Brilliant lack of integrity! (/sarcasm)

And Kagan is much loved by the Obamas. I think there's a pattern, here: Lack of integrity begets lack of integrity.

If you want good leaders, look for a pattern of integrity. Since they're all sworn to uphold the Constitution, the quickest way to weed out those who lack integrity is to how closely their actions support and defend the constitution.

Mitt's and Newt's patter of gun control legislation clearly indicate they do not support our Constitution. Since both have sworn to uphold it, their integrity is in question. Obama? Hillary? Fughettabout it.

Who does that leave?

Judges who're well-trained and have a high degree of integrity rarely disagree. Given the Supreme Court's recent splits on most decisions, something's rotten in those halls.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I don't doubt there are some that were not bought/purchased; but throughout history, politicans, judges etc have been influenced by businesses/individuals....thats politics. :confused:

Oh, I agree. I'm just pointing out a few to get their names out there.
 
Top