since9
Campaign Veteran
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.
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.