On Wednesday, a 5-4 Supreme Court held in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar
that states may “prohibit judges and judicial candidates from
personally soliciting funds for their campaigns.” It was a small but
symbolically important victory for supporters of campaign finance laws,
as it showed that there was actually some limit on the Roberts Court’s
willingness to strike down laws limiting the influence of money in
politics.
Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion for the Court in Williams-Yulee is certainly better for campaign finance regulation than a decision striking down this limit on judicial candidates — had the case gone the other way, judges could have been given the right to solicit money from the very lawyers who practice before them. Yet Roberts also describes judges as if they are special snowflakes who must behave in a neutral and unbiased way that would simply be inappropriate for legislators, governors and presidents: READ MORE
Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion for the Court in Williams-Yulee is certainly better for campaign finance regulation than a decision striking down this limit on judicial candidates — had the case gone the other way, judges could have been given the right to solicit money from the very lawyers who practice before them. Yet Roberts also describes judges as if they are special snowflakes who must behave in a neutral and unbiased way that would simply be inappropriate for legislators, governors and presidents: READ MORE
No comments:
Post a Comment
Just keep it civil.