Soros funding attempt to change rules on Judges appt

Post Reply New Topic

Well, here is a piece in favour of merit selection of judges in Wisconsin

http://dekerivers.wordpress.com/2008/07 ... eme-court/

Well, maybe Inuyasha has a point. I would hate to have that dumb conservative jackass of a governor involved in selecting judges.

Election of judges is, in my view, undermines judicial independence and the rule of law.

When judges must be concerned about public opinion and their chances of reelection, the quality of decision making will, perforce, suffer.

The proper vehicle for the exercise of popular will is the legislature.

Hear, hear, agreed that is why the American supreme court is not elected
<think of what a shambles that would be>

It's pretty much impossible to eliminate politics from the judiciary. Even if they're appointed, who appoints them? Qualifications are purely subjective. Elections aren't perfect but they're probably better than lifetime appointments, at least then the people can have their voices heard somewhat. The whole judicial system is inherently flawed. Judicial independence is a myth.

What Soros wants is the Judges be appointed by a group of lawyers in a smoke filled room, not by any elected official.

George Soros is in favor of smoking? Okay, that's it. I don't like him any more.

The lawyers can appoint judges, if they want, but I don't want anyone exposed to smoke. That's much too harmful.

Actually, that is not what Soros wants, and those who say so are misrepresenting the issue.

What is wanted is an advisory body that will provide non-partisan advice on the qualification of potential appointments to the political leadership that will make the appointments.

In Canada we have Judicial Appointments Advisory Committees which are composed of lawyers, including prosecutors, defenders and civil litigators, sitting judges, police and lay members. These committees screen all applicants and make reccommendations, but the decision remains always with the Minister (in the case of most judicial appointments) or the Prime Minister (in the case of the Supreme Court, or the Chief Justices and Associate Chief Justices of section 96 courts).

But the real key issue is not the appointment process, but security of tenure. Elected judges have no security of tenure, so must always be mindful of the requirement to be reelected, which will affect their decision making. Furthermore, given the ethical prohibition against appearing before a court of which one has been a member, or a court inferior to it, former judges are circumscribed in their ability to make an ongoing living after leaving the bench.

Judges in Canada are appointed until age 75 and can still be removed by a joint address of both Houses of Parliament (in the case of s. 96 courts). They are beholden neither to the government of the day nor to the electorate, so they are at liberty to render judgement based solely upon the instant case and not upon political considerations.

I haven't misrepresented the issue, define "non-partisan", now tell me someone you can think of that is completely "non-partisan", I'm likely to disagree with you on them being non-partisan. When Soros says he wants "non-partisan" people picking judges, he means people that he approves of picking judges. Could you see Frances Fox Piven or Cass Sunstein picking judges.

Frances Fox Piven has advocated using violence in protests, the ends justify the means.

Cass Sunstein has advocated shutting down conservative websites among other things.

That's a comma splice. So, she is just another conservative who shoots her mouth off about the second amendment. So what? Also, she isn't a lawyer, and wouldn't be a part of the Soroist cabal. Although I'm sure that she would pick some very good judges, if given the chance.


Not a bad idea. Conservative websites are cesspools of anti-Americanism, violence and filth.

Cute but she is actually a leftwing socialist like you, not a Conservative.



Thank you for proving you lied when you said you followed the Constitution.

You just advocated violating the 1st Amendment to shut down the ability for people whom are politically opposed to your views to have a voice.

A cute left-wing conservative socialist, who shoots her mouth off about the second amendment? Isn't it just the right-wing conservative socialists who get bent out of shape about the Second Amendment?

Ah, so you're a geriatrophile.


I follow the constitution. I wasn't advocating that the government shut down conservative websites. Only that the websites be shut down. Passive voice can save your skin, if you know how to use it.

By the way, didn't the last episode of "Barney" have something about the difference between "who" and "whom?" Weren't you paying any attention at all?

Well, if you believe that you have not misrepresented the issue, then it appears that I cannot underestimate your scholarship.

Let's ignore your canards and get back to the issues.

Advisory panels do not pick judges. They screen applicants and develop lists of qualified candidates, from which the political leadership picks judges. You can try all you like to twist people's words, but nowhere does Soros say that he means "people that he approves of," picking judges. In the Common Law world, the selection of judges, is and always has been the privilege of the executive (limited in some jurisdictions by the legislature or a chamber thereof).

Meanwhile, what of the corruption of decision making caused by depriving judges of security of tenure? Or have your betters not yet put words in your mouth to respond on that question?

Do you know who else is in favor of merit selection of judges?

Why, that extreme left-wing Jewish communist rabble-rouser herself, Sandra Day O'Connor

http://judgesonmerit.org/2009/01/30/san ... s-the-way/

Who knew that President Reagan was actually a participant in this Jewish communist conspiracy?