It's not surprising it took a case like this to appear only now. The hyper-funding of elections for state judges is a relatively recent phenomenon. What's sad is that it took a case this *egregious* to bring the issue to the Supreme Court's attention. 39 states run elections for judges -- who knows how many more "minor" non-recusal decisions have been made?
1 comment:
It's not surprising it took a case like this to appear only now. The hyper-funding of elections for state judges is a relatively recent phenomenon. What's sad is that it took a case this *egregious* to bring the issue to the Supreme Court's attention. 39 states run elections for judges -- who knows how many more "minor" non-recusal decisions have been made?
Post a Comment