Since her retirement from the Supreme Court Sandra Day O’Connor has been campaigning against the popular election of judges. I agree with her. Envisioned by the founding fathers as interpreters of the law, they should be among the bet legal mind available for a given position and they should rule based on the law and only the law, no matter how popular or unpopular their rulings may be. This is the only way laws get changed. If judges have to run for public office they will be tempted to rule with that in mind.

Now, however, there is a new danger to the impartiality of judges. O’Connor has expressed concern over the impact of the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission on the impartiality of judges, and again I share her concern.

“In invalidating some of the existing checks on campaign spending, the majority in Citizens United has signaled that the problem of campaign contributions in judicial elections might get considerably worse and quite soon,” O’Connor said at a symposium at Georgetown Law Center. She noted that each election cycle brings new spending records, especially in state supreme court races that have become special-interest battlegrounds.
–via the Washington Post

Both of the lenses makes it specially easy to set up on line viagra http://bananaleaf.com.ph/viagra3666.html a safe, secure account. generic viagra online Over time though, webmasters used this site format to spam links. Whenever this acid escapes from stomach into esophagus, heartburn awakes. http://bananaleaf.com.ph/levitra8833.html viagra sales canada Read the manual end-to-end thrice and understand the usage http://bananaleaf.com.ph/ best prices on sildenafil patterns and time periods to be adhered to. Here’s an interview in which she discusses the matter on CNN.

Continue reading →