Letters to the Editor
-
Just play money to them
If a few thousand dollars here or there is so inconsequential, what's the point of giving (or requesting) it? Are these candidates for federal judgeships just so moved by peer pressure that they can't resist giving away a couple grand?
Lobbyists and corporations make this argument all the time. Google, for example, just formed a PAC to give similar amounts to Republicans despite the fact that individual Google employees tend to give money to progressive candidates. According to this argument, Google is not expecting to gain anything from their contributions. Perhaps they just feel bad?
Call me naive, but after Coingate, Jack Abramoff, Ken Blackwell and Diebold, it's probably time for Ohio Republicans to stop lecturing the media about the ethics of campaign finance.
-
In no way am I surprised by this.
Is anybody surprised by this? Is anyone in this country really (still) that naive after everything we've been through these last ten years? This is practically not even news, this is so unsurprising. (I'm glad you're reporting it, but my reaction is kind of like, Well duh.)
How sad is that?
Raise your hand if you can even be shocked anymore, or believe there is a depth to which someone in the administration won't or hasn't stooped.
[Sigh.]
-
Non-story
In a campaign cycle where the big parties have so far raised a combined $720 million (and this in an off year) $44,000 spread out over 24 judgeships sounds awefully cheap. since, as the authors themselves point out, there's nothing illegal about judges giving money to political parties, I fail to see why this is even a story. if you do four months of investigation and come up with nothing, slapping an exciting headline on it doesn't make it any better.
-
Is this how it works?
So we presume to tell other countries how to run their governments? In Iraq, do we say "by the way, when you appoint judges, make sure that the judges donate to the campaigns of those who appoint them?" Is that part of the playbook?
-
Big yawn
If 200,000 or 600,000 dead Iraqi's aren't an issue, if lying to the country about WMD isn't an impeachable offense, if the Donald (the one with some hair) hasn't been fired, if the aftermath of Katrina is still mostly aftermath, ... then some dubiously ethical (but still legal) actions by Bush appointees doesn't even make onto the radar. As much as I dispise the Shrub worshippers, this shouldn't (and won't) make into the news cycle.
-
I don't get it either.
Do we really think Bush appointed an appellate judge because someone gave him $1000? This is such a non-starter article. That these guys were appointed for ideological reasons, or even because they were buddies with the administration is not doubted. The fact that wealthy Republican judges donated money to Republicans is about as much a non-story as can be.
-
Contributions by judges/judge-nominees
I'm not surprised, neither by the fact it is happening nor by the lame excuses for it.
Unfortunately, some still just don't get it. Two words, folks: Caesar's wife.
-
Not the disease
This is just another symptom. Of course no law was broken - they're not stupid, and I'm sure these are judges who would uphold the theory that money equals speech. So where's the story?
Where are the so-called main stream media on any of these outrages? It's just a big yawn now. We're used to the corruption. They've won, and they have all the power and we can just lump it until they make a big enough mistake. Next week will tell if the last 6 years are a big enough mistake or not. I fear not.
I will never forget how astonished reporters were that the Amish families who lost their daughters to a madman forgave the family of the killer, and shared the food and money people had donated. It was as though these civilized acts of forgiveness, generosity and kindness were some sort of off-planet phenomenon.
Here is where the public will pay attention. Here is something exciting and new. Let candidates slug it out as to who is the most compassionate, the kindest, the most forgiving. It's easy to sink lower. Let's try it the hard way now.
-
The amount is not the problem
Several people in the article and discussion said that the amounts in question are so miniscule as to make it a non-story. The point isn't how much they gave; I sincerely hope that there is no price list for judgeship confirmations. The money is sort of a handshake, saying "I'm on your side, Senator. Don't forget me." It's a 'thank you' card; the sending of the check matters, not how much it's for.
Be that as it may, while the story made me quesy, it's just another blip in the barrage of bad news. The outrage bar has been raised so high, I'm not sure even Watergate would reach it today.
-
Money Trail from GOP Judges
$$$$$ See the GOP reaching for the K Street envelope stuffed with cash.
$$$$$ See the Republicans smirk as they trade influence for cash.
$$$$$ Hear the smirking GOP say, "What did you ever think we meant when we said we were the ($$$$$) "values' party."
$$$$$ "Cash is values...values is money...checks and balances...checks for balances...we like checks and money and values...it's all for sale. Got it?"
---cognitorex---
-
Well, duh.
Of course they gave money to top Republicans! If they share the same values as top Republicans, odds are they support them politically. I give money to Democrats, after all. People who are interested in politics, as I imagine most judges would be, tend to give money to their party or to various causes.
Isn't it logical that Bush would appoint people with similar values as himself?
I fail to see the scandal here.
-
For those who don't see the problem...
A strong, independent, and impartial judiciary is one of the cornerstones of our democracy. It's equally important that the judiciary not only be independent and impartial in practice, but that it be perceived as such by society at large. Even if the amounts in question are small and there may not be any impact on judges' rulings there is a problem with the way these contributions are perceived.
“The law makes a promise—neutrality. If the promise gets broken, the law as we know it ceases to exist. All that’s left is the dictate of a tyrant, or perhaps a mob.”
-Excerpt from: Honorable Anthony M. Kennedy. Address to American Bar Association symposium, Bulwarks of the Republic: Judicial Independence and Accountability in the American System of Justice, held December 4-5, 1998, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
“The legitimacy of the Judicial Branch ultimately depends on its reputation for impartiality and nonpartisanship.”
-Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 407 (1989)