« Overreacting to Holocaust Museum shooting | Main | Are bipartisan policies more sustainable? »

June 11, 2009


This was a simple case of the right wingers on the Supreme Court saying it was okay to buy judges and the left wingers with the support of Kennedy saying that you can NOT buy judges.

The case was about a guy who spent $3 MILLION dollars to help get a Judge elected that was to oversee the same guys court case where he had $50 million dollars to lose.

In political terms that's called corruption. In business terms that's called an investment.

The right wing Supreme Court Judges decided that corrupt business investments in getting Judges elected that would subsequently oversee your multi-million dollar court cases was just fine.

Well, no, it's corruption.

And the right wingers on the Supreme Court clearly voted for corruption.


And if your preferred candidate loses, you can challenge the winning justice as biased against you and try to get them removed from any case to which you are a party. It's a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose situation.

Sorry, but that simply makes no sense.

Here's the current system: A company with a legal battle donates millions of dollars to have a hostile judge defeated and to elect a judge of their choosing in his place. The new judge proceeds to vote in the company's favor. Everybody sees it as at best an attempt to rig the system.

That is far more corrupt than the hypothetical you offer, because virtually no-one would fault a judge for ruling in a case against a party from whom he didn't accept money. The bias in your hypothetical is entirely on the side of the defendant.

And the defendant would lose all credibility because it would look like they were complaining that the judge wouldn't take a bribe.

The comments to this entry are closed.