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

Fri Mar 16 14:36:13 PDT 2012

I would point out that in North Carolina, this guy would be eligible for public financing to run for the state supreme court.  Too bad Alabama doesn’t have a similar system so scarce public resources could go to subsidize (i) the crazy candidate, or (ii) the guy who got kicked off the court for defying a federal court order.

I do, however, like his campaign message:  “I’ve never been disbarred.”  Set a low bar and achieve it!

Bill

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Edward Still
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 2:04 PM
To: JBoppjr at aol.com
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] today's NY Times editorial on Alabama Supreme Court partisan election

Actually, the Dems have a candidate -- Harry Lyon. http://blog.al.com/archiblog/2012/03/then_democrats_last_hope_in_al.html and 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<mailto:still at votelaw.com>
  www.votelaw.com/blog<http://www.votelaw.com/blog>
  www.edwardstill.com<http://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<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:415-922-9779>
PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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/20120316/9356b8a6/attachment.html>