This blog post is closed for comments.

Oldest First
  • pbjbeach Nov 15, 2012

    if there is not but say $1,000.00 dollars injected into a campain there is the lost of impartiality by an presideing judge in any case for it natrually would create a situation of baises on the part of any judges decision as thayt he/she would automaticly lean more to the person/enity that had an was providing them with their campign funding thank you

  • CaryFather Nov 14, 2012

    Justice Newby is a very well-respected jurist with documented bipartisan support. And, none of the contributors named in this article are parties before the Court. Any first year law student would recognize that Caperton is easily distingishable. The article doesn't mention who raised money for Ervin or what their motivation may have been. But, every judge and justice in the state enjoys the backing of one of the two major parties and their allies, including the other 6 justices who would also hear a redistricting appeal. All of them have the same supposed conflict. Until they became the minority party, Democrats mandated purely partisan judicial races in which those allegiences were explicitly stated. Now that they're on the losing end, they suddenly find partisan politics taints the judiciary?

  • geosol Nov 14, 2012

    The practice of buying judges is so totally against good Democratic principles that its inevitable the practice will be made illegal in the near future. Only an aging and increasingly irrelevant REPUBLICAN party will try to defend the practice, and they will once again find themselves on the losing side of U.S. history.

  • Inter Alios Nov 14, 2012

    An attorney for any defendant who appeals the case to the NC Supreme Court who does not file a motion for Newby to recuse himself from the case would be guilty of legal malpractice. I would attach a CD of Newby's banjo playing campaign ad to the motion. When the redistricting case lands in the Supreme Court, you can bet there will be motion(s) for him to recuse himself. Appointing judges would not make a difference. Those who aim to "buy" a judge would simply direct their funds towards those who make the appointment. Solution: call it what it actually is . . . out and out bribery, and punish it with about 20 years in prison.

  • Grand Union Nov 14, 2012

    Electing judges is a bad idea. It just makes the post open to being purchased by the group with the most money. Read Grishams book "The Appeal" to see how thats done.

    A judge that doesn't toe the line simply gets $1 million given to his opponent at the next election.

Oldest First