Americans think 'justice is for sale'

October 29, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Money talks, the saying goes, and many Americans think it’s telling judges how to rule on cases, according to results of a poll released Thursday.

Justice at Stake and the Brennan Center for Justice commissioned the poll that found nearly 9 out of 10 Americans believe campaign donations affect courtroom decisions.

“They’re worried that justice is for sale,” Bert Brandenburg, executive director of Justice at Stake, said in a news release.

The poll asked 1,200 registered voters about campaign donations made directly to judges’ campaigns as well as about “independent spending,” in which outside groups spend their own money on TV ads and other election materials for or against a judicial candidate. The poll revealed that 87 percent of voters believe both kinds of spending have either “some” or “a great deal” of influence on judges’ decisions.

A judge should step aside, 92 percent of voters said, when one party in the case has either donated directly to the judge’s campaign or spent significantly on election materials designed to help elect the judge.

According to a new report by the two groups, independent spending on judicial races by special interest groups hit a record high in 2011-2012 of $15.4 million.

Randall T. Shepard, former Indiana chief justice, is a member of Justice at Stake’s board of directors. The group’s focus is keeping courts fair and impartial.

 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • full disclosure
    Justice at Stake is dedicated to push the Soros agenda of only judges appointed by non elected kommissars. From their website: :Key state issues and reforms concern the growing expenditure of money to elect judges and whether judges should be elected or appointed to the bench." Question ... who pays the freight for this group?
    • Yes Soros is here
      Here is Justice at Stake admitting that Soros funds them: http://www.justiceatstake.org/newsroom/justice-at-stake-in-the-news-18109/?wall_street_journal_soros_bets_on_nevada&show=news≠wsID=9033 So former Chief Justice Randall Shepard is a friend of George Soros and his Open Society?
    • democracy is a slogan for the war machine not a reality for americans
      Sure money affects voting in campaigns. But the cost of influencing elected judges via campaign contributions is a lot steeper and the outcomes less predictable than the cost of controlling them via the political appointment process. The political appointment process is one that puts elected officials in charge of appointment process in a place of heavy reliance on those large private professional organizations like the ABA who "vet" the candidates "professional qualifications" and also apply ideological acid-tests behind closed doors. When judges have to stand for election or re-election, the populace has a chance to veto what we the law-establishment think they should do. Most judgeship elections are uneventful but there are recent examples in Indiana which show that the electorate may still have an opinion in spite of our collective endorsements and approvals. Major changes to American society have happened in this century via judicial fiat rather than "democracy." Roe v Wade is one example and the trend of judicial approval of homosexual unions is another. It is odd that USA is now the top-cop in the world for "democracy" but the democratic will in the early 1970s against abortion or the democratic will against same sex unions was overcome not by elections nor public debate but essentially by judicial decision. Ironic that the US seeks to impose democracy on foreign societies that seem disinclined to it, even to the point of war of aggression to accomplish such aims, and yet at home when the democratic will does not bend the way the oligarchs want it to, they resort to other ways of accomplishing the social engineering nonetheless. Anyways, hopes and complaints to the contrary, it may be inevitable that election of judges will wither away just as Plato observed democracy inevitably declines into oligarchy. Plus ca change, plus le meme chose.
    • Soros has not left the buiding
      Proof that Justice at Stake is a George Soros operation: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=7661

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT
    1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

    2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

    3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

    4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

    5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

    ADVERTISEMENT