|
Authored by: YurtGuppy on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 12:55 PM EST |
Unfortunately, the courts are the place where a lot of the political fights are
taking place these days.
---
a small fish in an even smaller pond[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cjk fossman on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 02:06 PM EST |
Please remove that article.
It's PJ's blog. Nobody
is forcing you to come here.
If the justices in those
jurisdictions
were making decisions contrary to the Liberal
Zietgiest the
Liberals would be
demanding their heads on platters through
the same
actions.
Please cite one example to support
this
assertion.
Liberals want the judiciary protected from removal
and then
stacked for their
view of matters.
Well I guess I
would like a state judiciary that gives
individuals a fair hearing against
corporations. This
appears not to be the case in, for example, Ohio. I would
also like to see some of the vacancies on the federal
judiciary
filled.
At least Conservatives are not calling for a change in
the
system.
Quoting from the article, "Measures to water down
merit
selection went on the ballot in Arizona, Florida, and
Missouri." I
think these qualify as "change in the system."
Also these are at
State judiciary levels. This is not the
"Federal Republic of the United States
of America" but
rather a
different form that is the union of multiple States
...States may operate
differently, within certain bounds, in their internal
affairs than the way other
States do and the Federal Government
does."
I confess the point evades me here. I guess you are
coming out in favor of state control over state matters.
Does it not bother
you, then, that Rick Santorum and Bobby
Jindhal both campaigned in Iowa
against a sitting Iowa judge? Does it not bother you that
outside
organizations poured money into several states to
influence elections. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Saturday, November 17 2012 @ 12:31 AM EST |
The press is claiming that the Iowa judicial recall votes
(not elections) were a sign that the voters had rejected the
previous recall results against three Iowa Supreme Court
justices.
There might be other explanations - causation vs.
correlation and all that.
First, a 60/40 vote on a judicial recall is significant
considering that the results are usually north of 90/10.
Second, a mitigating factor might have been that the more
justices you recall, the more justices will be appointed by
a Republican governor (from a pool nominated by a non-
partisan -- yeah, right -- committee). You might end up with
a court skewed in the opposite direction or worse. Said
governor is not known for his subtlety. His response to a
needed budget cut was an across the board budget cut, and
let the victims figure out how to survive. This hits social
services, public safety, infrastructure, education and
correctional system equally hard. Seems like there might be
a better way, though it might take more time.
So, the vote might be a sign of something, or it might not.
Only time will tell. Meanwhile, beware of partisans claiming
success.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|