Exposed! George Soros Agrees With Founding Fathers!

[Joanne98]

You have to love this breathless headline from the Worldnutdaily:



The punchline is that the thing that they're "exposing" -- unwittingly, of course -- is that Soros agrees with the founding fathers on how judges should be selected.

A new report by John Gizzi of the Capital Research Center, to be released within the next few days, has an explanation: A powerful move by very wealthy interests across the United States to reshape the judiciary in the mold of progressives who believe the Constitution should be interpreted through the filter of personal desires.
And the primary force behind the move? George Soros, the hedge fund billionaire who personally provides the money for a number of liberal advocacy organizations such as MoveOn.org.


Ooh, that sounds scary. He wants to "reshape the judiciary in the mold of progressives." By doing what, exactly? By making sure state judges are appointed rather than elected:

"George Soros plans to influence the selection of state Supreme Court justices across the country. He's funding massive efforts to end judicial elections in state after state, pushing instead for 'merit based appointments' that favor the political interests of the liberal lawyers who pick the judges," Matthew Vadum, the CRC chief who edited Gizzi's report, told WND...

The report follows an analysis by the American Justice Partnership that confirmed Soros already has spent some $45 million to change state procedures from electing judges to having them appointed - after being nominated by a clique of elites.

The report, by attorney Colleen Pero, described Soros' plans to "remake the judiciary and fundamentally change the way judges are selected in the United States."

Gizzi's report explains that Soros wants to remove voters from the process through which judges are nominated, elected or retained. Instead, he wants to have them chosen by elite teams of mostly lawyers, appointed by the politically powerful and protected while in office.


Hmmm. Having judges appointed rather than elected, and once appointed having them isolated from political influence so the elected branches of government can't interfere with them doing their job. Where have I heard that idea before? It sounds familiar. Oh yeah! The Constitution!

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/11/exposed_george_soros_agrees_wi.php

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. What if we got to vote on retaining Clarence Thomas?

[xchrom]

2. i hate, hate, hate voting for judges. now there's the FIRST office that anyone would buy. nt

[Jim__]

3. And, a big issue for conservatives this year is revoking the 17th amendment.

Tha average voter is far more informed on where her senator stands than she is on where judges stand. So, are conservatives only against informed votes by the electorate?