Sandra Day O'Connor: Justice for Sale

[babylonsister]

Justice for Sale
How special-interest money threatens the integrity of our courts.

BY SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR
Thursday, November 15, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

Voters generally don't express much interest in the election of judges. This year, as in years past, voter turnout in elections for judges was very low. But judicial elections, which occur in some form in 39 states, are receiving growing attention from those who seek to influence them. In fact, motivated interest groups are pouring money into judicial elections in record amounts. Whether or not they succeed in their attempts to sway the voters, these efforts threaten the integrity of judicial selection and compromise public perception of judicial decisions.

The final four candidates running for open seats on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania raised more than $5.4 million combined in 2007, shattering fund-raising records in Pennsylvania judicial elections. Since 2006, high court campaigns in Georgia, Kentucky, Oregon and Washington also set fund-raising records. Since 2004, nine other states broke records for high court election spending.

Most of this money comes from special interest groups who believe that their contributions can help elect judges likely to rule in a manner favorable to their causes. As interest-group spending rises, public confidence in the judiciary declines. Nine out of 10 Pennsylvanians regard judicial fund raising as evidence that justice is for sale, and many judges agree. According to a nationwide survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Institute, partisan judicial elections decrease public confidence that courts are fair, impartial and operating in the best interest of the American people.

The first step that a state like Pennsylvania can take to reverse this trend is replace the partisan election of its judges with a merit-selection system, or at least with a nonpartisan system in which the candidates do not affiliate with political parties. In a typical merit-based system, an independent commission of knowledgeable citizens recommends several qualified candidates suitable for appointment by the governor of the state. After several years of service, the appointed judge's name is then submitted to the voters for an up or down vote known as a retention election.

The second step a state can take is set up campaign-conduct committees to educate voters and the media about the criteria people should use to select judges. These committees can also publicize accurate information about the sources of big contributions, providing the kind of transparency that allows voters to decide whether a judicial candidate's impartiality may be compromised by her contributors. Finally, the committees can flag inappropriate campaign conduct and provide information to help voters interpret charges made in campaign advertising sound bites.

more...

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010864

[BrklynLiberal]

1. blah blah blah...still too little, too late Sandy.

:thumbsdown:


Where were your "principles" when your opinion could have really made a difference??

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. Sounds like she's trying to claw out a legacy for herself.

Don't bother, O'Conner. Your legacy is already cast in stone. The last seven years are all on you.

[Baby Snooks]

2. Never too late...

"In a typical merit-based system, an independent commission of knowledgeable citizens recommends several qualified candidates suitable for appointment by the governor of the state. After several years of service, the appointed judge's name is then submitted to the voters for an up or down vote known as a retention election."

The problem is the partisanship of the governor. If such a commission were "balanced" with an equal number of Democrats and Republicans and "other" party affiliations, why not allow the commission to appoint the judges instead of the governor and thereby remove the partisanship?

At least give her credit for speaking out. It's never too late to speak out.

[shraby]

3. Pot. Call. Kettle. Black. n/t

[NGinpa]

4. "Qualified Judges"

I live in PA where we vote judges to the bench. I do have a problem with this system as it is practiced now because the voters know nothing about lawyers and qualifications. However in today's world where politics and law are becoming so intermingled, I do not have a problem with people picking judges as long as the judges meet certain objective qualifications. Therefore for me, my beef is with the pre-election picking process because I do not believe this process filters out those who are potentially not above a minimum qualification level. This pre-selection qualification process should also be a must in executive appointment of judges systems because an incompetent can never be expected to do the job. So whatever system is in place for putting judges on the bench, make sure some objective pre-selection process for above the criteria level competence is in place!

[disndat]

6. Her words are worthless.

Sandra Day O'Connor is the worse case scenario of affirmative action. Like Clarence Thomas, Condiliar Rice, Colin Powell, etc. The Republican RW abused and misused the hard fought MLK Civil Rights effectively for their own evil purposes.

[ArbustoBuster]

7. She just wants nonpartisan elections because the Republicans are in retreat.

I know not to vote for someone with an R after his or her name. I want that R there like a scarlet letter to let me know that someone is untrustworthy.

[Demeter]

8. We Don't Have That In Michigan

All the Judgeships are "non-partisan". You have to call NOW or such a group to find out who is the GOP and who is worthy of your vote.

[Cobalt-60]

9. I won't ever forgive this bitch for appointing junior to the white house

To me she's already dead.

[MasonJar]

10. And you expect anyone to listen to you, Judge, after you betrayed

the country and the Constitution by stopping the recount of the Florida votes, because it might have been detrimental to W? Detrimental to W? What about the country and the world? May you roast in Dante's Inferno for eternity for the lives you have shattered, both Iraqi and American. You were the one who could have allowed the count to show the true winner (forgetting of course the 70,000 + already deprived of their right to vote by Jeb and Katherine and the tens of thousands who were confused by the ballot created by the alleged dem who switched just in time from GOPerhood in Miami/Dade to install a ballot which confused the voters by its pathetically poor design and gave Gore votes to Pat Robertson--(Jews for Robertson..oh, yeah); you caved; so shut up. You may in fact be the judge most deserving of revilement because you knew better; the other 4 were and are simply sychophants. You gave our country a stealth president who has proved to be the worst president in our history. You knew this was wrong because you and your Felonious 4 other conspirators mandated that this never be a decision of PRECEDENT.