The Republicans in the North Carolina General Assembly intend to make all judicial elections partisan. Under their proposed new law, all judges would run under a party label, because, according to Senator Phil Berger, we need to know exactly how judges are going to rule before they even hear the evidence (no kidding!):
“Judges have the power to make decisions that impact millions of North Carolinians, and voters deserve to know where they stand on the important issues facing our state,” Berger said. “That’s why this bill restores a common-sense and straightforward partisan election system that lets voters know who shares their views on the proper role of the judiciary.”That's about as naked as it gets -- the injection of partisan politics into what is supposed to be a fair and impartial judiciary.
Good God Almighty! There's no limit to their cynicism and their thirst for more power.
9 comments:
I would like to know a candidates political views before an election.
It would help to keep liberals from the bench where they would muck things up as liberals usually do.
Anonymous (lol) wrote that he/she/it "would like to know a candidates (sic) views before an election".
Actually, I wish the judiciary would view their cases without respect to political predisposition. That is the only way to further justice.
Wrong, their "political disposition" should be to the Constitution.
J. W. Williamson, I think you've got a great blog and have reposted a lot of your news items to other places.
But you definitely have a troll. Someone who is always the first or only one to post, who never contributes anything to the conversation and who has only one point: hatred of all things not Republican.
He's definitely good at what he does - shutting down dialog, the aim of any troll. No one wants to read a comment stream where this toad has the only or most of the comments there.
Anonymous (lol) wrote that justices should align their political disposition to the Constitution.
Ummm ,, perhaps Mr. Anony Mouse should read up on the perils of strict constructionism versus interpretation. Unless, of course, he/she/it wishes to return to those good ole days.
Anon 2:43
Is voicing an opposing view trolling?
All posts here are approved by JW and he can keep anything he thinks is trolling off his pages.
I post alternative (correct) opinions here now and then and am often surprised that JW posts them. As for "hatred of all things not Republican" you are falling into the usual snare for democrats in viewing EVERYTHING as Democrat vs Republican. It is not an "us vs them" equation, it is statism vs freedom, and both parties are statist.
Most people I know are absolutely fed up with the Republican party and Republicans in general. Just because someone criticizes the Democrats doesn't mean they are a Republican or agree with what they are doing. Most of them are supporting Trump because he is fighting BOTH parties in reducing government.
There is plenty of criticism on this blog for Republicans, but no honest evaluation of Democrats and what their doing.
Both parties are for themselves and not the people or the country.
Liberals would prefer to not allow opposing opinions to be heard. JW often supports that position by censoring the posts which he finds too persuasive.
1:12
You are so FOS.......do you even read 11:44 or Wolfie? Anything crazier than that should never be posted. It would be the rambling of the truly insane. I appreciate opposing viewpoints. (Sorry Wolfie. Every blue moon you do make sense.) The opposing viewpoints I appreciate are philosophical, not from the devotees of the 1%.
Thank you, Jeff, for proving my point.
Post a Comment