Texas Republican Judge Switches Party, Denouncing GOP as Party of Bigots and Hate-Mongers

[Rolyo85]

It is relevant to choosing Judges who will follow the Constitution and rule of law, rather than imposing their own liberal agenda.

Lol yeah, better to impose their own conservative agenda, like stopping gays from getting married.

Seriously, you should have your own show.

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

Are you willing to share the secret? Why would she not tell you her party affiliation?

Oh hahah, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply there WAS a secret. She felt that, as a judge, she needed to be non-partisan and not declare nor make rulings according to a party platform. It seemed to make good sense to me at the time.

Of course, her next 15 years on the bench seemed to be a series of calamities including a lesbian sexual harassment scandal (though I think she was framed because I knew the girl in question) about a million disgruntled employees (apparently she made Judge Judy look like Olivia DeHavilland) and ended under a cloud when she was removed from the bench after a scandal involving her using law clerks to run her personal errands and, as she was leaving, she blew the whistle on a HUGE local scandal that sent quite a few Luzerne County officials to prison.

What a gal!!! I always liked her, tho and her reasoning on the partisan issue made good sense, for what it's worth

 

[T-Rexx]

Is there a reason why judicial candidates should not share their views on controversial issues?

Yeah, so they can get elected!

 

[opinterph]

No, it is not race, it is culture.

What does that statement signify?

 

[Kulindahr]

What does that statement signify?

From past experience in this forum, it means he thinks everyone but white people should abandon all their own heritage and customs and become "like us".

 

[opinterph]

From past experience in this forum, it means he thinks everyone but white people should abandon all their own heritage and customs and become "like us".

That's your interpretation. I want Benvolio to answer the question.

 

[rareboy]

Neither party wants judges that will follow the Constitution. The only difference is that they despise different parts of it.

Spot on.

 

[Alnitak]

That's your interpretation. I want Benvolio to answer the question.

Actually what kulindahr said was accurate.

 

[TX-Beau]

Does that imply that judges sometimes impose their political ideology when ruling on cases?

Sometimes quite blatantly, sometimes through bias conscious or not, sometimes through continuance of institutional policy.

It's just naive to think that personal politics has no influence, or that someone elected to the bench didn't play politics to get there, or promise this or that along the way.

I don't see how people can pretend that once they put on the black robe, they magically become this thing called impartial. Judges run the gamut just like everyone else.

 

[opinterph]

[The judicial candidate I knew] felt that, as a judge, she needed to be non-partisan and not declare nor make rulings according to a party platform. It seemed to make good sense to me at the time.

I agree that the reason makes good sense, while recognizing that other people may prefer the opposite approach.

BTW~ I read a summary of the scandal.

Does that imply that judges sometimes impose their political ideology when ruling on cases?

… sometimes through continuance of institutional policy.

Tell me a little more about what you mean by “institutional policy.”

Is there a reason why judicial candidates should not share their views on controversial issues?

Yeah, so they can get elected!

What happens when a sitting judge seeks RE-election or election to a different court?

If he or she has ruled on controversial matters in the past, there will be a record that can be evaluated according to its alignment with the various competing viewpoints.

 

[Kulindahr]

Sometimes quite blatantly, sometimes through bias conscious or not, sometimes through continuance of institutional policy.

It's just naive to think that personal politics has no influence, or that someone elected to the bench didn't play politics to get there, or promise this or that along the way.

I don't see how people can pretend that once they put on the black robe, they magically become this thing called impartial. Judges run the gamut just like everyone else.

Four blatant examples: and Ginsberg, Scalia, Sotomayor, and Thomas on the Supreme Court.

 

[Centexfarmer]

When I was very young in PA and just becoming interested in politics I once made the mistake of asking a judicial candidate I knew what her party affiliation was and she looked at me like I had two heads and politely told me she had no intention of telling me. She then went on to explain WHY she wouldn't tell me and I "got" it.

See? I got that too.

I git it.

I love me some White Eagle who created this Thread.

He's a fellow Texan and I "love him like a fat kid loves cake."

But there's really NO NEWS here in this story.

Except if maybe we all just called this judicial nominee a 'merican.

voted for her, she won and, although it doesn't matter to the story, she became the judge who, years later, first blew the lid off of the "Kids for Cash" scandal in my hometown. Even though she was removed from the bench, I STILL don't know her party affiliation (though I can hazard a GUESS though it's still just that)

Luv, bless your heart.

Only the neo-nazi-right wing-bible thumping-fascists knuckle draggers care what this former Republican judicial candidate for Bexar (PRONOUNCE Bay Har) Nominee from San Antonio, Texas has to say against the "corporate sponsored" Tea Party (FASCISTS!)...unless one of their own goes against them.

Oh yeah! They're going to throw this guy under the bus, and swear before God and a court of law that this guy was ALSO driving that bus.

And the Democrats here in Texas: aka Libtards, aka "Socialists," aka "dems who don't get it," aka "godless sodomites" point to this story as just one of thousands of examples of why 'merican conservatives' are actually knuckle dragging PARTY PLATFORM CONFORMISTS, and that their ideology TRUMPS THE US CONSTITUTION, despite the fact...that when asked have....never actually their read their "pocket sized version" of it, that they claim that they keep in their coat pocket everytime that they are trying to make a point about.

OMG!

Here I go again...off on a rant that the manipulative/can't win an argument/can't win an election without Gerrymandering/every one should watch FOX NEWS so that "you'll get it"/ but choose to source "Liberal Media"...aka NOT Fox News, and why we can't recognize that racism in 'merica' ended with the Voters Rights act in 1964 and again in 1965.

Almost all judicial elections in my state are non-partisan. [Link]

Honestly?

This concept is foreign to me.

How can an office holder swear an oath to "defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America," while simultaneously putting a "party" and their corporate sponsored campaign contributors on the front burner?

As an 'merican' and a Texan, the only idea that I have, and an electoral process that I know, I have to follow the money.

According to what you've shared in this thread...in Jawja, the electorate in the Peach State don't have any knowledge of their Judicial Candidate's political leanings.

...and therefore their "corporate sponsors."

Somehow I feel that there is a distinct difference in our home state election laws.

Is there any chance that you might be able to elaborate a distinction?

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

Luv, bless your heart.

HEY.....wait a minute!!! .... you're from TEXAS and I KNOW what that MEANS in Texas!!

 

[opinterph]

According to what you've shared in this thread...in Jawja, the electorate in the Peach State don't have any knowledge of their Judicial Candidate's political leanings.

...and therefore their "corporate sponsors."

I have made no statement in this thread to suggest that Georgia voters lack “any knowledge” of their judicial candidates’ political leanings. Though party affiliation would certainly provide a genuine clue, it is not the only means of communicating such leanings. It may be helpful to point out that Georgia is not unique in its preponderance of “low information” voters. And in that respect, a ballot that excludes party designation may present a quandary that some voters cannot easily resolve.

Somehow I feel that there is a distinct difference in our home state election laws.

Is there any chance that you might be able to elaborate a distinction?

The two states approach the matter differently, but I imagine a true distinction depends on how those differences manifest in the results.

Though Texas is one of only a handful of states that use partisan elections to select judges, nearly a quarter of all state supreme court justices in the US are selected through systems of partisan design. [Link]

States that elect their state supreme courts in partisan elections are also the states that generate the highest total judicial campaign contributions. In recent years, partisan elections appear to clearly favor Republican justices. [Center for American Progress]

Among recommendations it promoted in 2003, the American Bar Association suggests, “For states that retain contested judicial elections as a means to select or reselect judges, all such elections should be non-partisan and conducted in a non-partisan manner.” [ABA] (PDF)

And on the other end of the spectrum, former US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor advocates elimination of state judicial elections and implementation of a system in which judges are appointed.

I think there are many who think of judges as politicians in robes. In many states, that’s what they are. [Chicago Tribune]

 

[Benvolio]

Clearly the Democrat appointed Justices of the US Supreme Court are partisan legislators in robes. They do not even attempt to follow the intent of the Constitution, and would say that the law must change to meet the times with themselves doing the changing.

 

[Rolyo85]

Clearly the Democrat appointed Justices of the US Supreme Court are partisan legislators in robes. They do not even attempt to follow the intent of the Constitution, and would say that the law must change to meet the times with themselves doing the changing.

Right. Because Scalia's "it's just so easy to discriminate against gay people!" line was totally constitution-inspired. Give me a break. To you "partisan" and "constitutional" are just code for "what I don't like" and "what I like".

Not that you even notice homophobia of course...

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

To you "partisan" and "constitutional" are just code for "what I don't like" and "what I like".

Perfect......

 

[Benvolio]

No, that is not true. I studied Constitutional Law in Law School and have litigated Constitutional cases. I am sure the liberals here would support Roe v Wade, but nothing in the Constitution can be twisted to prohibit the States from making abortion illegal. But you think women should have that right, so, presto, it must be in the Constitutional. Liberals hate Citizens United and believe that businesses should not have the right to support candidates or issues, even though the Constitution is clear.

 

[Alnitak]

No, that is not true. I studied Constitutional Law in Law School and have litigated Constitutional cases. I am sure the liberals here would support Roe v Wade, but nothing in the Constitution can be twisted to prohibit the States from making abortion illegal. But you think women should have that right, so, presto, it must be in the Constitutional. Liberals hate Citizens United and believe that businesses should not have the right to support candidates or issues, even though the Constitution is clear.

You know the sword cuts both ways and corporations have a lot more money than the Tea Party or even the Koch brothers. The US Chamber of Commerce intends full well to reinsert itself in upcoming elections. If they are unsuccessful, they just might give their cold hard cash to the donkeys.

 

[Rolyo85]

No, that is not true. I studied Constitutional Law in Law School and have litigated Constitutional cases. I am sure the liberals here would support Roe v Wade, but nothing in the Constitution can be twisted to prohibit the States from making abortion illegal. But you think women should have that right, so, presto, it must be in the Constitutional. Liberals hate Citizens United and believe that businesses should not have the right to support candidates or issues, even though the Constitution is clear.

How is the Constitution clear on corporations having the right to free speech and supporting politicians? Please cite the particular parts of it that support that. Having studied it, I'm sure you'll have no trouble doing it.