Take
a look. Headline reads:
Supreme Court candidate hits rival over contributions
And the first paragraph reads:
Superior Court Judge Joan Orie Melvin has launched a sharp attack on Judge Jack Panella, her Democratic opponent for a state Supreme Court seat next Tuesday, claiming it was unethical for him to take $1 million in campaign contributions from trial lawyers, whose cases he rules on regularly.
Looks bad, huh? But wait:
Judge Melvin acknowledged that she accepted $100,000 from that group in the last reporting period, with an additional $25,000 listed on the latest report, which was given to the Department of State yesterday. But Judge Melvin maintained that there's a huge difference between the amount she accepted and the amount Judge Panella did.
Whah? She's accusing him of "pay to play" type corruption with an organization she
also took money from? I thought this part exceedingly funny:
Judge Melvin said she favors limits on campaign contributions for judicial candidates, but did not specify what those limits should be. She did say, however, that "$1 million is too much, and I would definitely say $500,000 is too much."
I would guess she thinks $125,000 was just about right.
5 comments:
The very idea of choosing SC justices by popular election is beyond idiotic.
A Spork in the Drawer
The wisdom of the people is something I have faith within. But, I don't have any faith in the watchdogs and MSM.
Nor is there much faith in the courts when it comes to simple things like say, ballot access, and the constitutional statement of fair and equal elections.
Given what we've got now, I'm still jumping no the 'retention vote bandwagon.'
Really this gets down to "Whatever amount I can skim is OK. Anything over that is venal."
Yup, that's the kind of thought process I want in a Judge....
Would you prefer that our governor or the other idiots in Harrisburg that couldn't even pass a budget appoint SC candidates?
Unbelievable.
It's ok to be a tiny whore, but not a big ol' juicy whore.
Post a Comment