Backstory: Judicial Elections

Thursday, October 21, 2010

State judicial elections, once relatively low interest affairs, recently have been flooded with money, often from outside groups seeking to influence judicial decisions—particularly for state Supreme Court justices. On today’s Backstory segment Adam Skaggs, counsel with the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, traces the history of judicial elections and examines what the political landscape looks like today.


Adam Skaggs

Comments [7]

tracy from NYC

apparently my neighbor Bobby didn't understand my point.
what little mention of Liberal "activities" i did hear was glossed over with carefully chosen words in the affirmative (as per usual) and clearly not an issue NPR choses to probe like a rectal exam as it does any conservative political involvement.

Oct. 22 2010 12:26 AM
tracy from NYC

SEIU dumps $225,000 into Sharron Angle attack ad

Oct. 22 2010 12:17 AM
Robert from Manhattan

Tracy from New York City clearly wasn't listening. The guest did mention union-inspired activities on behalf of judges running in elections.

It is clear that the popular election of judges is an outrage. It should not exist, as justice is profoundly tainted as long as a judge needs to think of re-election instead of the facts of a case and the law.

Oct. 21 2010 09:19 PM
tracy from New York City

really? wut an incredibly biased show. how about speaking the truth? how about ohhh touching on the subject of liberal groups/socialist groups/ and other extremist groups NOT of conservative persuasions who attempt to influence legislative outcomes, legal issues and elections in states across the nation. One that comes to mind immediately is an atheist group from Texas getting involved in some 1st Amendment issue out west ...and oh, lets see: how about SEIU drones being bussed in to stage protests, to "work" polling stations, etc.
Get Real public radio. Your hypocrisy has been outed.

Oct. 21 2010 01:56 PM
Gustav Kellerman from Mineola

Most people don't understand the appeals process. Appeals courts aren't supposed to revisit the merits of the case-- only procedural issues. This means the judge only considers whether the *proceedings* in the trial were fair and legal.

Oct. 21 2010 01:24 PM
Adrea Muscovi from Lower Manhattan

I'm a progressive's progressive, but I'm also an attorney, and I'm not so naive as to believe that judges are completely impartial-- no human being can be. Case in point: Supreme Court justice Stevens, whose position on the death penalty shifted significantly during his tenure.

Oct. 21 2010 01:18 PM
tom from uws

re: Iowa ad:
"Ruling Class" is an expression used by Carl paladino in promos currently running on WNYC.

Oct. 21 2010 01:17 PM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.