Thursday, January 7, 2010

JUDICIAL QUID PRO QUO

Rather than bastardize the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution into a a self serving politically correct tool of judicial manipulation; I support a common sense interpretation that results in fair play and equity for all participants of the judicial process.
The playing field must be as level as possible to insure that justice is served.
The wealthy already have enough advantage in their ability to purchase legal counsel; the judge should not be for sale to the highest bidder as well.
The trial abilities of opposing counsel will never be equal; but a judge's treatment of all participants must be.
When a particular party and the decider of fact are financially in bed with each other, justice is jeopardized.
If an attorney sincerely wants to participate in the election process of the judiciary; rather than in the purchase of a favorable outcome, he should have no objection to do so anonymously.

A judge must be impartial, regardless of political affiliation.  He/she has a responsibility to render decisions in an equitable unbiased fashion and therefore should avoid even the mere appearance of impropriety.

Hence the issue of whether or not it is appropriate for an attorney, who might reasonably be expected to try a case in front of a particular judge, to be allowed to contribute, without restraint or limitation, to that particular judge's "campaign" and there be no quid pro quo implied.

Does the 1st Amendment guarantee that bribery and/or extortion be an integral part of the judicial election process?

Judicial candidates can only receive political contributions within a certain statutory time frame prior to the election.  Does that Unconstitutionally inhibit the Founding Father's Free Speech guarantee of the 1st Amendment? 

If attorneys who practice in front of a judge are given free reign to make judicial payoffs, why not allow criminal defendants to do the same prior to sentencing?
On the civil side, I'll bet big business would outspend those pesky plaintiff's prior to judgment being rendered.

For the politically correct: money talks and bullshit walks.....for the rest of us we need campaign reform.

8 comments:

Jigmeister said...

Come up with a better way. Get rid of judicial elections. Don't think much of the Missouri plan though. Just influence peddling in a different way and judges get recalled because the public still don't know anything about them. Perhaps an appointment system where both the public and bar poll has equal weight in a recall

BLACK INK said...

Jigmeister,
Insuring, through an apolitical balanced legal forum review process, that every judicial candidate is qualified for the actual bench sought; would minimize the filings by incompetents.
In other words, the "people" elect judges from a qualified candidate pool.
Your recall idea would be an excellent safeguard to aid in insuring that the elected judges perform as advertised.

Art said...

Inkman,
Rage thinks you're a simpleton. Just thought you might want to know. Peace out bro'.

Anonymous said...

If you think the CJC is incestuous try and handle a matter at the Family Courthouse. OMG, talk about a pay to play corrupt system.

Anonymous said...

that's our system so deal with it you self righteous asshole.

Aggie Pct Chair said...

Very Well written article. I agree and I believe in the appointment system. Look at Perry's appointees, they have all done very well and are highly regarded. It isn't perfect, but if you look at the last few Texas Governors, their appointments have been great.

Anonymous said...

Black:

No place does the nasty and insidious effect of this problem manifest itself more pervasively than at the current Texas Supreme Court. Their decisions WILL be guided almost entirely by whether big business is a litigant in the case. And specficially, insurance companies. Its not hyperbole to say that if an insurance company appeals an unfavorable trial verdict to the Texas Supremes, the trial verdict WILL ALWAYS get reversed. The statistics don't lie. Insurance companies flood the campaign coffers of the Texas Supremes and they get their dividend in spades. Its a dirty dirty Court that really doesn't get enough attention. Ironically, I'm a Republican and, while I certainly didn't vote for the coronation of King Obama, I was hopeful that one positive by-product of a winning democratic presidential candidate sitting atop the ballot would have been a sweep of the cash-for-justice Justices on the Texas Supreme Court.

BLACK INK said...

Anon 12:05,
That precisely reinforces my premise.
Judges should be nonpartisan and not for sale.