New York Times: Case May Alter Judge Elections Across Country

[BigBearJohn]

MATEWAN, W.Va. — Don L. Blankenship, the chief executive of the nation’s fourth-biggest coal mining company, is not shy about putting his money where his mouth is when it comes to West Virginia politics.

Brent D. Benjamin campaigning for the State Supreme Court in 2004. Mr. Blankenship spent $3 million against his opponent.
In 2004, he spent $3 million on tough advertisements attacking a justice of the State Supreme Court who was seeking re-election. Some of the advertisements said the justice had agreed to free a sex offender.

“I thought we would beat him more easily than we did,” Mr. Blankenship said, reflecting on how hard it was to persuade voters.

Brent D. Benjamin won that election and went on to join the 3-to-2 majority that threw out a $50 million jury verdict against Mr. Blankenship’s company, Massey Energy.

The question of whether Justice Benjamin should have disqualified himself is now before the United States Supreme Court.

MUCH MORE: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/washington/15scotus.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

[varkam]

1. This is one of the reasons why judges shouldn't be elected.

Not to say that everything's hunky-dory in a system of appointments, but it mitigates the graft quite considerably.

[TexasObserver]

3. Disagree. We know a lot more about elected, than appointed, judges.

Take a good look at what Reagan, Bush I and Bush II have done to the federal judiciary. Many of those clowns could never have been elected as judges.

Republicans want appointed, not elected, judges for a reason. They can control more judgeships by doing so.

If we want to have rules that limit a single contributor, or mandate recusals, I'm all for that. But throwing out the only check on big business - the ballot box - is not an improvement. We'll get more of the GOP type judges, who will be owned by sectors of the business world.

[varkam]

5. It seems to work out okay for the Supreme Court, doesn't it? eom

[TexasObserver]

7. NO, it doesn't.

The Supreme Court has typically been a conservative entity, deadset on keeping the excesses of democracy from disturbing the longstanding seats of economic power. How can you believe the Supreme Court has worked out? It's been a disaster ever since Republicans took over.

We can hope the Reign of Error will come to an end, but even if it does, the Supreme Court remains a laggard, not a leader, of law for the benefit of the people.

[varkam]

10. And how, exactly, has the Supreme Court been...

..."deadset on keeping the excesses of democracy from disturbing the longstanding seats of economic power"?

[TexasObserver]

11. Spend some time and read a few cases.

I don't care if you cure your ignorance or not, and I'm not going to lead you by the hand through 220 years of the Supreme Court protecting property rights. If you're a Democrat, you shouldn't need the history explained to you. If you're been alive the past 20 years and conscious, you shouldn't need the history explained to you.

[varkam]

12. Uh, that's what I spend most of my day doing - reading Supreme Court cases.

I was hoping for a discussion of those cases - not bullshit snark.

I guess I see which one of those I'll be getting.

[TexasObserver]

13. Good. Keep reading. Mix in some study time.

The only place in the world where people spend most of their day reading Supreme Court cases is law school, and if you're a law student, you're where I was 35 years ago. Congratulations. Eventually you'll qualify to TAKE the bar exam. I hope your understanding of the history of the Supreme Court is better by then.

If you really want a discussion of the cases, then read your cases, go to class, and raise your hand every time a professor indicates a desire to have someone present a case. If you really don't know the history of the Supreme Court, please take a look at the court during the FDR years. Or, read up on the absurdities of the Rehnquist court, where they strained to deliver property rights to big business under the authority of the post civil war amendments.

[varkam]

14. Unforuntately, I don't have a lot of study time.

Well, not time that I can devote to additional studies outside of what is Rxed by my classes. The state of my apartment can attest to that. I was really looking for what you thought were the decisions that were so terrible. I'm not saying that there haven't been bad supreme court decisions. For instance, I just a case today, Gonzales v. Raich where the USSC upheld the supremacy of the Controlled Substances Act to pre-empt the California Compassionate Use Act (which, by the way, was enacted by referendum) under the guise of the commerce clause. The thing was, they seemed to lower their standard of analysis from regulating things that were held to substantially effect interstate commerce to regulating things that Congress could be deemed to have a rational basis for believing that such things had a substantial effect (in the aggregate). I thought it was pretty intellectually dishonest way of not wanting to essentially pave the way for the legalization of marijuana. My prof thought it was because Stevens was afraid that, if the commerce clause was further restricted, it would put civil rights law at risk since it was largely based on the commerce clause.

Go figure.

But like I said, it's not as though they haven't made some bad calls. Hell, Holmes wrote approvingly of a system of eugenics and forced sterilization from the bench. Marshall essentially gave us manifest destiny on a platter by saying that the Indians don't technically own the land they've lived on for generations.

My issue is, though, is that I don't think that it would be any better with elected judges and, IMO, it could be quite a lot worse. Take, for instance, the recent Supreme Court case of Kennedy v. Louisiana where Kennedy was challenging the constitutionality of a Louisiana statute condemning to die those who are convicted of molesting a child. SCOTUS held that it violated the eighth. Hell, even here on relatively-liberal DU were himming and hawing over the decision. Both McCain and Obama condemned the decision.

If Justices are elected, then I think that decision would have turned out very differently because - instead of just applying principles of law - they would inevitably allow a political calculus to enter into their analysis. Not that it doesn't happen as is, but I think that the effect would be (is) far more pronounced with an elected judiciary.

[rpannier]

6. IN California the republikkans threw out (I think) 3 judges on the Byrd court

Look at how many stupid decisions our elected officials make because they are appeasing the braying public that overreacts to one thing after another.

Having judges elected just makes the people who are supposed to protect our rights more susceptible to worrying about how their decision might affect their re-election chances.

Doyou honestly believe the Warren Court would have handed down the many landmark progressive cases they did if they were elected?
Do you really believe they'd have survived 20+ years to make it happen?

[murielm99]

2. Bug business loves to buy state supreme court justices. n/t

[JTFrog]

4. Orkin or Terminix?

:shrug:

[murielm99]

8. LOL!

I meant big business. Maybe I was thinking about the Bugman, DeLay down there in Texas. What is happening with his trial?

I read John Grisham's "The Appeal" not long ago. Of course I knew about big business buying up those seats before I read the book. But it is a simple read, and his books are popular with all kinds of people. He may help get out the message about this.

[JTFrog]

9. I couldn't resist.

:hi: