Money trails lead to Bush judges

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A four-month investigation reveals that dozens of federal judges gave contributions to President Bush and top Republicans who helped place them on the bench.

Will Evans

Oct. 31, 2006 | At least two dozen federal judges appointed by President Bush since 2001 made political contributions to key Republicans or to the president himself while under consideration for their judgeships, government records show. A four-month investigation of Bush-appointed judges by the Center for Investigative Reporting reveals that six appellate court judges and 18 district court judges contributed a total of more than $44,000 to politicians who were influential in their appointments. Some gave money directly to Bush after he officially nominated them. Other judges contributed to Republican campaign committees while they were under consideration for a judgeship.

Republicans who received money from judges en route to the bench include Sens. Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Sens. George Voinovich and Mike DeWine of Ohio, and Gov. George Pataki of New York.

There are no laws or regulations prohibiting political contributions by a candidate for a federal judgeship. But political giving by judicial candidates has been a rarely scrutinized activity amid the process that determines who will receive lifelong jobs on the federal bench. Some ethics experts and Bush-appointed judges say that political giving is inappropriate for those seeking judicial office -- it can appear unethical, they say, and could jeopardize the public's confidence in the impartiality of the nation's courts. Those concerns come as ethics and corruption scandals have roiled Washington, and on the eve of midterm elections whose outcome could influence the makeup of the federal judiciary -- including the Supreme Court -- for decades to come.

The CIR investigation analyzed the campaign contribution records of 249 judges appointed by Bush nationwide since 2001. The money trail leading from Bush judges to influential politicians runs particularly deep through the political battleground states of Ohio and Pennsylvania.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/10/31/money_trail/

[I'm Gone 60]

So that's $44,000 donated by 24 judges and throwing "all" this money around got them appointed. "There are no laws or regulations prohibiting political contributions by a candidate for a federal judgeship."

As they say there is no there there.

[Heracles 417]

Steve seriously, where do you get this stuff from. Is it emailed to you through a liberal mailing list?

[Carol&Marc 0]

SALON IL JONG! GOT IT!

[garya505 2]

Looks like more liberal

[mawilson 2,133]

There are no laws or regulations prohibiting political contributions by a candidate for a federal judgeship.

If this ####### is legal, they should bloody well make it illegal.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There are no laws or regulations prohibiting political contributions by a candidate for a federal judgeship.

If this ####### is legal, they should bloody well make it illegal.

[garya505 2]

[Ban Hammer 14,396]

There are no laws or regulations prohibiting political contributions by a candidate for a federal judgeship.

If this ####### is legal, they should bloody well make it illegal.

and take away their right to support their candidate?

btw, there are laws on the books that limit the amount of money contributed.

[mawilson 2,133]

There are no laws or regulations prohibiting political contributions by a candidate for a federal judgeship.

If this ####### is legal, they should bloody well make it illegal.

and take away their right to support their candidate?

btw, there are laws on the books that limit the amount of money contributed.

It doesn't look kosher. The judicial branch was designed to be separate from the

other two for a reason (and that is to prevent the government from abusing its power.)

[Ban Hammer 14,396]

There are no laws or regulations prohibiting political contributions by a candidate for a federal judgeship.

If this ####### is legal, they should bloody well make it illegal.

and take away their right to support their candidate?

btw, there are laws on the books that limit the amount of money contributed.

It doesn't look kosher. The judicial branch was designed to be separate from the

other two for a reason (and that is to prevent the government from abusing its power.)

yet a law to keep one from exercising their political choice is denying them some of their rights, is it not?

[mawilson 2,133]

yet a law to keep one from exercising their political choice is denying them some of their rights, is it not?

Yes -- the rights they should be willing to sacrifice for the public good.

Would you want to be tried by a judge who was in cahoots with your accuser?

[Ban Hammer 14,396]

yet a law to keep one from exercising their political choice is denying them some of their rights, is it not?

Yes -- the rights they should be willing to sacrifice for the public good.

Would you want to be tried by a judge who was in cahoots with your accuser?

ah yes, surrender their rights. as i recall the military could not even vote at one time, they'd defend democracy but could not take part in it at the ballot box. such a wonderful idea! let's take it a step further and not allow the judges to vote either, as they could be in cahoots that way too!

[mawilson 2,133]

yet a law to keep one from exercising their political choice is denying them some of their rights, is it not?

Yes -- the rights they should be willing to sacrifice for the public good.

Would you want to be tried by a judge who was in cahoots with your accuser?

ah yes, surrender their rights. as i recall the military could not even vote at one time, they'd defend democracy but could not take part in it at the ballot box. such a wonderful idea! let's take it a step further and not allow the judges to vote either, as they could be in cahoots that way too!

Don't get caught in the details, Charles -- look at the big picture.

Federal judges should be barred from participating in any events or organizations

that have agendas or interests that may touch on court business. It doesn't mean

they should be completely removed from the world of public discourse, but they

should be definitely held to a higher standard than the rest of us.

[Ban Hammer 14,396]

yet a law to keep one from exercising their political choice is denying them some of their rights, is it not?

Yes -- the rights they should be willing to sacrifice for the public good.

Would you want to be tried by a judge who was in cahoots with your accuser?

ah yes, surrender their rights. as i recall the military could not even vote at one time, they'd defend democracy but could not take part in it at the ballot box. such a wonderful idea! let's take it a step further and not allow the judges to vote either, as they could be in cahoots that way too!

Don't get caught in the details, Charles -- look at the big picture.

Federal judges should be barred from participating in any events or organizations

that have agendas or interests that may touch on court business. It doesn't mean

they should be completely removed from the world of public discourse, but they

should be definitely held to a higher standard than the rest of us.

yet in those details, there is that annoying part about how judges have to surrender their right to support whatever candidate they like in order to be a judge........