Republican Ohio supreme court for sale, wanna buy ?

[MeDeMax]

(on edit, changed subject)
Justice Maureen O’Connor says campaign money doesn’t affect her

By Denise Grollmus
Published: March 19, 2008

In 2006, the Ohio Supreme Court found itself sweating beneath the national spotlight. The New York Times had run a damning article detailing how the court routinely favors those providing hefty campaign contributions.

According to the paper's research, justices ruled on behalf of donors 70 percent of the time. Some, like Terrence O'Donnell of Rocky River, sided with the money 91 percent of the time.

Suddenly the rest of America understood what Ohioans have long known: Ohio Supreme Court rulings seem to be available to the highest bidder.

"I never felt so much like a hooker down by the bus station in any race I've ever been in as I did in a judicial race," Justice Paul Pfeifer told The Times. "Everyone interested in contributing has very specific interests. They mean to be buying a vote."

The court, obviously, was none too happy to be called out in the national press. It's an issue that still stings today. Ask Justice Maureen O'Connor about it, and be prepared for a full frontal attack.
...

Its a long article but it chronicles her entire legal career. This is crazy, but how do you become a supreme court justice with just two years on the bench ?

http://clevescene.com/2008-03-19/news/mo-money-mo-justice/

[MeDeMax]

1. entire article on one page, please cancel the print dialog

http://clevescene.com/2008-03-19/news/mo-money-mo-justice/print

[MeDeMax]

2. and here is that "damning" New York Times article

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A06E7D81730F932A35753C1A9609C8B63

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A06E7D81730F932A35753C1A9609C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

The above links may not work for everyone.

TILTING THE SCALES?: The Ohio Experience; Campaign Cash Mirrors a High Court's Rulings

By ADAM LIPTAK AND JANET ROBERTS; ADAM LIPTAK REPORTED FROM COLUMBUS, OHIO, AND NEW YORK, AND JANET ROBERTS REPORTED FROM NEW YORK. MONA HOUCK CONTRIBUTED REPORTING FROM NEW YORK.
Published: October 1, 2006

In the fall of 2004, Terrence O'Donnell, an affable judge with the placid good looks of a small-market news anchor, was running hard to keep his seat on the Ohio Supreme Court. He was also considering two important class-action lawsuits that had been argued many months before.

In the weeks before the election, Justice O'Donnell's campaign accepted thousands of dollars from the political action committees of three companies that were defendants in the suits. Two of the cases dealt with defective cars, and one involved a toxic substance. Weeks after winning his race, Justice O'Donnell joined majorities that handed the three companies significant victories.

Justice O'Donnell's conduct was unexceptional. In one of the cases, every justice in the 4-to-3 majority had taken money from affiliates of the companies. None of the dissenters had done so, but they had accepted contributions from lawyers for the plaintiffs.
...