Re: U.S. high court: Judges must avoid appearance of bias

**Stephanie** · by **Stephanie** on Tue Jun 09, 2009 11:53 am

While I agree there needs to be serious campaign finance reform, I disagree with what I think is your desired outcome: publicly financed campaigns. I'd prefer stricter caps on contributions, including corporations and PAC's and enforcement of the law.

I agree judges should be appointed rather than elected. That doesn't entirely eliminate problems like corruption either. Where there is a will there is a way, especially when it comes to money and power.

**ziggy** · by **ziggy** on Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:14 pm

The real solution is to stop electing Judges and instead have them appointed by a bi-partisan committee made up of individuals from many different segments of the community and political parties.

SamCogar · by SamCogar on Wed Jun 10, 2009 1:08 am

The real solution is to hold Judges accountable to adhering to and abiding by the intent of the Rule of Law.

Laws are passed for a reason ...... and there is no reason a Judge should apply a different opinion.

Aaron · by Aaron on Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:00 am

ziggy wrote:
The real solution is to stop electing Judges and instead have them appointed by a bi-partisan committee made up of individuals from many different segments of the community and political parties.

Lets see. The solution I put forth is not a violation of someones individual rights.

Yours is.

**ziggy** · by **ziggy** on Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:44 pm

What rights are those?

TerryRC · by TerryRC on Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:25 am

Laws are passed for a reason ...... and there is no reason a Judge should apply a different opinion.

Yes, and not all of the laws legislative bodies pass are good or well-written.

These laws need to be struck or modified.

**ziggy** · by **ziggy** on Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:28 am

Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:
The real solution is to stop electing Judges and instead have them appointed by a bi-partisan committee made up of individuals from many different segments of the community and political parties.

Lets see. The solution I put forth is not a violation of someones individual rights.

Yours is.

Whose and what rights do public campaign finance proposals violate?

Aaron · by Aaron on Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:01 am

Not going into the recent PAC contributions overturned by the WVSC, they violate the First Amendment for those who understand it.

Are you one of those?

**ziggy** · by **ziggy** on Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:22 pm

Aaron wrote:Not going into the recent PAC contributions overturned by the WVSC, they violate the First Amendment for those who understand it.

Are you one of those?

No. But you are talking about something else.

Whose and what rights do public campaign finance proposals violate? Or do you even know what public campaign proposals are about?

**SheikBen** · by **SheikBen** on Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:55 pm

Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:"Just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, similar fears of bias can arise when -- without the consent of the other parties -- a man chooses the judge in his own cause,'' Justice Anthony Kennedy said for the court.

Good. And I agree.

It's also nice to know that as a paid member of the WV Highlands Conservancy, Judge Robert Chambers will now be required by this decision to recuse himself from all cases filed by or involving that group, as it should be.

You mean a standard that applies to everyone, not just conservatives? Hahahahaha good luck with that!