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

[Edward Still]

Actually, the Dems have a candidate -- Harry Lyon.
http://blog.al.com/archiblog/2012/03/then_democrats_last_hope_in_al.htmland
http://blog.al.com/archiblog/2012/03/stuff_harry_lyon_said.html



Edward Still
Edward Still Law Firm LLC
130 Wildwood Parkway, Suite 108, PMB 304
Birmingham AL 35209
205-320-2882 (voice & fax)
  still at votelaw.com
  www.votelaw.com/blog
  www.edwardstill.com
  www.linkedin.com/in/edwardstill <http://www.linkedin.com/in/edwardstill>


On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 2:38 PM, <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:

> **
> 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-united-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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/e02d822e/attachment.html>