MLK said: "Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere"

End Corruption in the Courts!

Court employee, judge or citizen - Report Corruption in any Court Today !! As of June 15, 2016, we've received over 142,500 tips...KEEP THEM COMING !! Email: CorruptCourts@gmail.com

Tuesday, January 1, 2008

New York Times: NY Judicial Election Process is a SHAM (MORE, CLICK HERE)

It will be a happy, happy Year if the corruptive judicial election process in New York, and as discussed in a New York Times October 2, 2007 Editorial, is finally addressed. That editorial is worth repeating, and rereading.........MORE.......

Real Judicial Elections
The New York Times - Editorial
October 2, 2007

The United States Supreme Court hears arguments tomorrow in a challenge to New York’s undemocratic method of electing its Supreme Court judges. A federal appeals court ruled that the process, a relic of the era of clubhouse politics, infringes on the constitutional rights of voters and candidates. The Supreme Court should affirm that well-reasoned decision.

New York’s Supreme Court judges — who are trial-level judges, not members of the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals — are nominated through an archaic system of judicial conventions. These conventions are dominated by delegates handpicked by party bosses, who vote however the bosses tell them.

Independent candidates for judge have virtually no chance of bucking the system. To win the nomination, a candidate who is not backed by the bosses may need to recruit more than 100 delegate candidates to run in different districts. Those candidates would have to collect thousands of petition signatures to qualify for the ballot. If they did qualify, they would need to do an enormous education campaign, because their names appear on the ballot with no identification, so there is no way for ordinary voters to make an informed choice among them.

The judicial conventions themselves are an empty exercise. More than 96 percent of the nominations are uncontested. Absentee rates range as high as 69 percent. They often take, from beginning to end, as little as 20 minutes. When Margarita López Torres, the Brooklyn-based judge who is challenging the system, asked to attend a convention so she could make her case to the delegates, she was told that candidates were not allowed.

In other words, the whole process is a sham. It has the trappings of democracy, but it is not democratic at all. Candidates who want to be elected to a New York State Supreme Court judgeship have no way, short of being given the nod by the bosses, to compete for the voters’ favor. The voters have no real hope of having their votes make a difference in the election.

The New York-based United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rightly ruled that this system of non-elections infringed on the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of association because it denied candidates and voters “a realistic opportunity to participate in the nominating process.”

In defending the system, New York State argues that the role of political parties in elections must be respected. In this case, however, it is New York State’s law that is trampling on the parties — unless you consider party membership confined to the back room. The law forces the parties to choose their judicial nominees through a Byzantine system that ensures that their actual members, the voters, do no more than rubber-stamp the decisions that are actually left up to the party bosses.

An expert witness for the defendants in this case conceded that New York’s system of selecting judges was “designed” so “the political leadership of the party is going to designate the party’s candidates.” That might work well for the bosses, but it is bad for democracy and inconsistent with the political rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

6 comments:

hoping, but realistic said...

The only hope is that the federal government comes in a takes over the DDC and the Commission on Judicial Conduct. BOTH are useless.... foxes watching the hen houses.....useless!!

quite new york attorney said...

Things might get better when Judith Kaye finally leaves.....start counting the days..... it should only take 5 or 10 years to correct the damage she did to law and order in New York.

Judith Kaye= the lady of lawlessness!

quite angry new york attorney said...

oops... i'm a quite angry new york attorney

Anonymous said...

JUDY KAYE IS THE BIGGEST DISEASE OF THE STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM! This disaster of a lawyer, judge and female being needs to be confined...ASAP! But, the statement by the state atty that the political parties need to be respected in this process, is the most amusing and idiotic thing a state atty has ever mouthed.....and really, they are puppets for stupid, ridiculous and mediocre comments!!
POLITICAL parties do not represent the taxpayer in any forum related to SUPREME COURT CHOICES FOR 14 YEAR TERMS! All political parties involved in this convention ( get together breakfast meeting) have their own personal agenda, which includes future favors, employment for friends and family and twisting of any and all cases that the judiciary hears....in ALL OCA COURTS! I know all of this, because i worked for OCA for 30 years and was very close to lots of high powered judges and administrators!
The AGENCY that never came forward to eliminate this travesty, or view it as the biggest form of corruption in their own ( alleged entity of justice or organized crime organization) should be the one to suffer tremendously through the FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM IS.....THE NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION! My resolution for 2008 is to help construct their fall!

Anonymous said...

The U.S. Supreme Court decision should be coming down soon.....

Anonymous said...

The only problem with the US Supreme court is that it reflects the mindset of Pres. Bush...what can we expect from this bunch? Sorry i used mindset...non-existent...ATTITUDE is better! Should i be encouraged somehow? The only thing right now that would encourage me is the removal of JUDITH DE-KAYE!

Blog Archive

See Video of Senator John L. Sampson's 1st Hearing on Court 'Ethics' Corruption

The first hearing, held in Albany on June 8, 2009 hearing is on two videos:


               Video of 1st Hearing on Court 'Ethics' Corruption
               The June 8, 2009 hearing is on two videos:
         
               CLICK HERE TO SEE Part 1
               CLICK HERE TO SEE Part 2