Voters going to the polls this week to select a state Supreme Court justice for the next 12 years may have had many motivations. A desire to have a competent, ethical person in that position should have been paramount among them, but less elevated considerations undoubtedly played a part as well, such as party affiliations, personal attachments to one candidate or another, and self-interest.
“Read the comments.” That's good advice when directing friends to a dubious article or hollow commentary on some newspaper websites. The paid staff will often play it safe with a viewpoint that’s strictly vanilla at best. You might direct your friends to read some real information and analysis provided by citizen journalists and unpaid polemicists in the comments below the story.
One of the great joys in life is getting the chance to tell a bully off, but the timing and the circumstances have to be just right or you're liable to suffer the consequences.
“[T]he public financing of elections – for judgeships or any other positions – is a boondoggle we all should deplore.” That's what we wrote six years ago in an editorial opposing Gov. Joe Manchin's proposal of a public financing pilot project for the two state Supreme Court seats to be contested in the 2012 election.
Our parents taught us as kids that the mere fact that everyone else is doing something is insufficient reason to justify doing the same thing. It may even be the very reason not to do it. On the other hand, just because everyone else is doing something doesn't mean it's wrong or inadvisable. Everyone else may actually be onto something and merit imitation.
One of the last acts of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia before his death last week was to explain high court’s majority view in granting a stay of the implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan, pending the outcome of a challenge now being considered by the U.S.