[EL] today's NY Times editorial on Alabama Supreme Courtpartisan elect...
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Sat Mar 17 08:27:29 PDT 2012
It is nice to have James Sample agree that, at least, the NYTimes is wrong
when they characterized the "problem" as being pervasive, rather than, as
James puts it, one "in the close, marginal case." Of course, the reformers
have argued forever that the cure of the influence of large contributions on
politicians is contribution limits, not outright abolishing elections. If
now reformers are arguing that contribution limits are not enough for
judges, then they are once again smearing judges for a greater lack of integrity
than other politicians.
And as to "the remarkable Adam Liptak Ohio study,"
_Click here: Campaign Cash Mirrors a High Court's Rulings - Sidebar -
NYTimes.com_
(http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/us/01judges.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all) , this study does show a a correlation between contributions and
voting behavior but this simply means that contributors correctly understood
the views of the judges they supported, not that their contributions changed
the judges minds. There is also a "remarkable" correlation between the
pro-life voting pattern of Congressman and their receipt of contributions from
pro-life PACs. Does anyone really think that these contributions changed
the politicians mind?
Jim Bopp
In a message dated 3/17/2012 7:46:25 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
James.J.Sample at hofstra.edu writes:
Jim and Roy set up a false dichotomy and then succeed in pointing out that
it's false. The success of their argument is entirely dependent on the
false premise. The core concern is not about changing minds on an issue, it's
about influence in the close, marginal case, and maybe even a
non-ideological case at that.
If one does not think money has at least some of that influence, then that
is a defensible view, but one that contains a conclusion that contradicts
the remarkable Adam Liptak Ohio study (unless you think that a 91%
correlation for one judge in a world where most cases are non-ideological in
nature, or even have the same "ideology" (a business-to-business contracts case
for example) is merely that---just correlation); the Palmer Louisiana study
(which, though subjected to withering substantive and ad hominem attacks
has some truly alarming substantive findings); the survey data of over 2000
state court judges themselves, nearly half of whom indicate that they
believe money is influencing decisions, not merely correlating with them; and,
of course, that detail known as centuries of human history, in which, as I
understand it, money has on one or two occasions had some small modicum of
influence.
Roy's reference to the "remarkable" and rare instance of "judges who
really do take bribes" inadvertently highlights the reason that concerns about
monetary influence in the courts ought to be taken seriously on a systemic,
as opposed to individual, basis. Absent the acknowledgment of an express
quid pro quo, which almost never exists precisely because it is tantamount to
admitting criminal bribery, concerns about monetary influence in the
courts will either be addressed either or, effectively, they will not be
addressed at all. Reasonable people on this list and elsewhere can and do
disagree as to the scope of the problems, if any, and as to the optimal solutions,
if any. But Jim and Roy "attacking and diminishing" the NYTimes for
"attack[ing] judges and diminish[ing] confidence in the courts," not, mind you,
for what the Times recommends as its solution (about which I'm quite
skeptical on a pragmatic level) but rather, for pointing out the actual concern
that Jim and Roy then choose to elide represents, at best, a bipartisan
missing of the boat.
________________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Roy Schotland
[schotlan at law.georgetown.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 5:29 PM
To: JBoppjr at aol.com; richardwinger at yahoo.com; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] today's NY Times editorial on Alabama Supreme
Courtpartisan election
Accustomed to agreeing w/ RWinger and sometimes agreeing w/ JBopp (but
always finding him stimulating or fun or both), may I agree that (in Jim's
words)
"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."
It's distressing, even damaging, that we so very often run into the mantra
about the evils of $supporting candidates, particularly judges, as if we
believe they're up for sale and not, as Jim says, "already agree[ing]".
I've no doubt that there are judges who. like the remarkable Martin Manton,
really do take bribes. I've yet to hear any judge of recent decades (apart
from penny-size shockers like the parking-ticket payoffs in two or three
jurisdictions or something with Roofers in Pennsy if I recall correctly) named
who, whether or not s/he shoulda recused, was believed to had a decision
influenced by $$.
Let's not, like NYTimes so often, attack judges and diminish confidence in
courts in the name of trying to make them nobler.
________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu on behalf of
JBoppjr at aol.com
Sent: Fri 3/16/2012 3:38 PM
To: richardwinger at yahoo.com; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] today's NY Times editorial on Alabama Supreme
Courtpartisan election
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-unite
d-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/20120317/e05b3901/attachment.html>
View list directory