[EL] today's NY Times editorial on Alabama Supreme Court partisan election

[JBoppjr at aol.com]

The NYTimes is wrong again:
 
However, the NY Times says, "Requiring would-be judges to...raise large  
sums from special interests eager to influence their decisions seriously 
damages  the efficacy and credibility of the judiciary."

Nearly everyone  gives to certain candidates because the candidate already 
agrees with them  on the issues, not to get them to change their mind on a 
issue. A person is a  fool to do what the NYTimes assumes everyone does.  Of 
course, the NYTimes  spend millions of dollars to influence judges by 
publishing editorials  urging them to do certain things, or not do other things.  
 
For instance, after the stay was granted regarding the Montana Supreme  
Court decision refusing to strike down a corporate ban on independent  
expenditures identical to the corporate ban struck down in Citizens  United, the 
NYTimes told the Supreme Court to take the case and even  instructed them on 
how to handle it: "If the Supreme Court takes the case, it  should call on the 
state court and the parties to gather data on the impact of  Citizens 
United — including the rise of “super PACs” and their dominant role in  
campaigns — so that the justices make a decision based on a real case and  
controversy, as the Constitution _requires._ 
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/controversy)  "
 
 
_Click  here: The Supreme Court and Citizens United, Take 2 - NYTimes.com_ 
(http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/opinion/the-supreme-court-and-citizens-uni
ted-take-2.html?_r=1)  
 
I suppose the NYTimes thinks that the Justices who would be corrupted  by 
the NYTImes' vast expenditure of corporate resources here are more  likely to 
think like they do, so this is worth it. Fortunately most judges have  much 
more integrity than the judges the NYTimes is apparently familiar  with.  
But I doubt that we will see anytime soon a NYTimes editorial  condemning the 
NYTimes for this blatant attempt to influence judges by the  expenditure of 
their vast corporate resources.  Jim Bopp

 
 
In a message dated 3/16/2012 3:02:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
richardwinger at yahoo.com writes:

Rick Hasen linked to today's NY Times editorial, "No Way  to Choose a 
Judge", which condemns partisan elections for elections for  State Supreme Court 
members.  I agree with the NY Times.  The  impetus for the editorial, as 
explained in the editorial's first  paragraph, is that Roy Moore just won the 
Republican primary for Alabama  Supreme Court Justice, polling over 50% in a 
3-candidate  field.

However, the NY Times says, "Requiring would-be judges  to...raise large 
sums from special interests eager to influence their  decisions seriously 
damages the efficacy and credibility of the  judiciary."

In fairness, since the editorial starts off deploring  the victory of Roy 
Moore, the NY Times ought to have included the point  that Moore was vastly 
outspent by his two primary opponents, and he won  anyway.

By the way, the November Alabama ballot will list only  Roy Moore on the 
ballot as the Republican nominee.  Democrats  aren't running anyone.  Any 
chance for an independent or minor  party nominee for that office depends on the 
outcome of a lawsuit  pending in US District Court in Alabama, against the 
state law that  demands all minor party and independent petitions were due 
on March  13.  They required 44,829 valid signatures.  Only Americans  Elect 
submitted a petition.  There is a special 5,000-signature  procedure for 
independent presidential candidates, but not other  candidates.

Richard Winger
415-922-9779
PO Box 470296, San  Francisco Ca  94147

_______________________________________________
Law-election  mailing  list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120316/2bffcfb3/attachment.html>