Posted on 04/29/2015 10:14:46 AM PDT by GIdget2004
WASHINGTON—A divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that states can prohibit judicial candidates from soliciting campaign donations, rejecting arguments such bans violate the free-speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court’s majority in a 5-4 opinion, said judges aren’t politicians, even when they join the bench by way of an election.
“A state’s decision to elect its judiciary does not compel it to treat judicial candidates like campaigners for political office,” the chief justice wrote. “A state may assure its people that judges will apply the law without fear or favor—and without having personally asked anyone for money.”
The case saw the chief justice split with his four fellow conservatives. Support for Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion, which upheld fundraising restrictions in Florida, came from the court’s four liberal justices, a rare alignment.
Justice Antonin Scalia in dissent said states are free to select judges by means other than elections. But if states want to choose judges at the ballot box, the First Amendment shouldn’t allow restrictions on candidates directly asking for donations, he said. By ruling otherwise, “the court flattens one settled First Amendment principle after another,” he wrote.
Florida rules prohibit judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign contributions, although they permit others, such as campaign managers, colleagues and friends, to do so on their behalf.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
It is really a farce because favor can be given in other ways. This does not stop corruption. It just obstructs freedom and the election process. If you want to get rid of corruption elect people of good character. If they have been trustworthy in life prior to election, they will probably be trustworthy after. But in the age of “character doesn’t matter,” there is no way to stop corruption. You just force it to be sneakier. Look at the Clintons. They are not even good at being sneaky. They have the media to cover for them. It is a lost cause. Judges are nominated who fit partisan ideals and the protections that were put in place to keep the judicial branch separate from politics have long ago just become the protections that aid it in being ultra partisan and our super legislative branch. The ONLY hope at this point is sunshine. So electing judges should be a good thing. This ruling obstructs and hinders the whole benefit of electing judges. Perhaps that was the real point.
I’d like to see such a ban in Texas. Since I heard about judicial elections (where lawyers who have and/or will have cases before a particular court can contribute to the campaigns of the candidates for that court), I have understood them to be a great cause of corruption. While it won’t eliminate corruption to stop these donations/payola, at least it’ll slow it down somewhat.
While I agree with Scalia, the problem of judicial election fund raising is massive in Texas. There are judges here that don’t even try to hide any appearance of a conflict when having parties come before them that have contributed to or even run their campaign. The correct answer is tighter ethics laws that prohibit a judge from presiding over a case where a party or attorney has had ANYTHING to do with his campaign. Unfortunately, that’s probably not going to happen.
This is an area where I wouldn’t mind some controls over campaign finance. Though I’d rather do it the correct way.
The decision, while understandable, is 180 degrees out of synch with their prior one in Citizens United. They’ve tied themselves into a pretzel with this one, I’m afraid.
Yup
How to judge the judges?
As a Florida voter, I face it every time a retain/not retain a judge appears on the ballot.
How can I, a generally law abiding citizen, with little to no experience in state criminal and civil court cases, even attempt to formulate an educated opinion on competence and/or merits of a judge?
Other than the likes of the obviously odious Judge Greer (who I never got a chance to vote against) it’s just a useless exercise of ignorant power.
Appoint them to a limited term, or randomly draft from a select group of qualified legal professionals for a limited term.
I generally vote against retaining judges.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.