It is long past time to drain the influence money from America's system of justice.
Jump to full article: New York Times, 2006-12-12
Author: DOROTHY SAMUELS
Intro: But some victory. The state Supreme Court justice who cast the deciding vote in the case, a former lower court judge named Lloyd Karmeier, received millions of dollars in campaign support in 2004 that Philip Morris and other tobacco interests tendered for the very purpose of trying to reverse the enormous "light" cigarette award. They got what they paid for.
Judicial ethics rules exempt campaign contributions from their otherwise strict approach of requiring judges to disqualify themselves whenever their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. But given the history, Justice Karmeier's failure to voluntarily recuse himself was a disgrace.
The Philip Morris case, it should be noted, was not the first time that Justice Karmeier, a Republican, ruled for big contributors in a high-profile case. . . .
Legislative and executive officials represent their various constituencies. Judges, in contrast, are supposed to represent only the ideal of justice. A judge deciding a case shouldn't be worrying how ruling a certain way might affect campaign fundraising, or whether it might invite a blitz of negative TV ads in the next election.
It is time -- long past time, really -- to drain the influence money from America's system of justice.
Jump to full article » |