Loading ...
As Would Be Predictable — Only G.O.P. Justices Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas And Samuel Alito Object To Such Common Sense
The New York Times is reporting the SCOTUS’ mostly liberal and/or sensibly-moderate body of justices have ruled 5-4 against elected judges ruling on cases directly involving their favorite campaign donors. Just as predictably, the dissenting G.O.P. activist justices of the Supreme Court are squealing about this ruling as it directly hinders the ages-old ability of white collar (and other) crooks and criminals to make generous campaign contributions toward the reelection of the judge(s) who previously would have been deciding their cases.
That’s right, in a UNANIMOUS stand against equality and fairness as well as a UNINIMOUS stand FOR “The best justice system money can buy” status quo we have previously enjoyed here in America, the far-right justices are perplexed, shaken, shocked and dismayed at their 4-5 defeat. For God’s Sake, this has been happening forever and a day and now these Liberals and moderates are rocking the boat, they whine. What about the Golden Rule? I.E., “He with the gold rules”? How can we have “justice” without this element, they bray at the top of their lungs.
Message to Alito, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Company: GET OVER IT. One could not come up with a fairer ruling than this one, which equates to: An elected judge is now forbidden to rule on a case involving one of his or her favorite employers’ -slash- supporters’ best interests, be it a criminal or a civil case. And that’s just a HORRIBLE decision, the far-right SCOTUS justices are screaming. How about this? How about CRY… ME… a… RIVER, jackasses. And my hat’s off to your colleagues for demonstrating some rare common sense.
Sonia Sotomayor, anyone? I’m starting to lean further and further toward President Barack Hussein Obama’s pick to replace departing Justice David Souter the more I think about it, despite my differences with her on the topics of unalienable gun rights and judicial legislation.
***
Naive me, I always figured that any Judge would recluse himself or herself if a coming court case included someone or something who had given them money. I wish Kilpatrick was still writting on Supreme Court decisions, this would be right up his alley.
“Sonia Sotomayor, anyone? I’m starting to lean further and further toward President Barack Hussein Obama’s pick to replace departing Justice David Souter the more I think about it, despite my differences with her on the topics of unalienable gun rights and judicial legislation.”
Hmmm….a judge that only bats .400 to be placed on the USSC? A judge who is of the same stripe as those who gave us the Kelo decision? A judge who seems to have as salient qualities being 1.) female and 2.) minority.
Would you go to a surgeon with a 60% failure rate? Or an accountant who gets it wrong 60% of the time? About the only job where a record like that is good is in a batter. And even there, if they flub 60% of the plays in the field, they don’t last long. (note: I don’t give a rats fart what their politics are – any judge who gets overturned that often shouldn’t be on the bench at ANY level much less the USSC. A record like that shows contempt for the law and the Constitution. Or a willingness to use the bench to push a personal agenda – which her own words seem to show)
Exile her to the 9th Circus where she belongs. DON’T put her where there is, and can be, no review of her decisions. The only good thing about her is that she isn’t all that far left of Souter. OF course, you can’t go much further to the left of Souter.
On the decision – I’m not too unhappy about it. I wish it had been a bit more defined. But, this may be a subject that is beyond definition. What to one may be the appearance of wrongdoing, to another is not. That seems to be what the USSC is saying here, avoid the appearance of wrongdoing.
here is a link to the decision:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-22.ZO.html
Agree with Joe, read the first couple paragraphs of judge Roberts disent. He says its great that we want fair judges, but how do we define what we just decided here?????
In order to correctly fix a problem, you must define it precisely (as an engineer, I know this well). If not, you waste lots of time and money solving it, if you solve it at all.
Another example…the assault weapons ban…what are we banning?
So, lets say I’m in court one day, and the GTL is the judge (uh oh..ha ha ha). What if they find out I bought the GTL a beer 20 years ago? Does he have to recluse himself?