I can't wait till Paul Burka has some "fun" with this.

Electing judges is completely idiotic. They should be appointed for life just like Federal judges.

I wonder how much to rent a judge for a few hours? or if I could club together with a couple of folks and we buy a pet judge and just share him?

Hmm...

Nothing in that article, at all, about the merits of the case. I don't care how much the guy gave them, you shouldn't *assume* corruption.

DamnYankees: Nothing in that article, at all, about the merits of the case. I don't care how much the guy gave them, you shouldn't *assume* corruption.

i'd say the judges with a possible conflict of interests should recuse themselves, but... it's all of them.

DamnYankees: Nothing in that article, at all, about the merits of the case. I don't care how much the guy gave them, you shouldn't *assume* corruption.

I thought judges had to avoid even the appearance of improper behavior? Sitting in judgement over someone that gave you $260,000 is pretty hokey.

burndtdan: i'd say the judges with a possible conflict of interests should recuse themselves, but... it's all of them.

I agree, but I don't know if having had someone donate to your election is a conflict of interest - it may be way too broad a category. Especially since it seems this guy donates to every GOP candidate.

Weaver95: DamnYankees: Nothing in that article, at all, about the merits of the case. I don't care how much the guy gave them, you shouldn't *assume* corruption.

I thought judges had to avoid even the appearance of improper behavior? Sitting in judgement over someone that gave you $260,000 is pretty hokey.

I agree, but what are judges supposed to do? Never preside over cases with anyone who donated to their political campaigns?

I do agree that elected judges are a bad idea.

I wish Molly Ivins was alive to see this and write a column about it. She would NEVER have let these assholes forget about this.

DamnYankees: Never preside over cases with anyone who donated to their political campaigns?

YES.

DamnYankees: Nothing in that article, at all, about the merits of the case. I don't care how much the guy gave them, you shouldn't *assume* corruption.

Here are the basics behind the case:

The couple bought a house from Perry Homes. The house had a lot of things wrong with it that were covered by warranty.

The homeowners said, "Fix the house."

Perry Homes said, "Nope."

The homeowners said, "Fine, we're going to sue."

Perry Homes said, "Why don't you use our arbitration group instead?"

Couple: "No thanks."

A few weeks later, upon realizing that they couldn't afford to take on Perry Homes in court, the couple says, "Hey, we'll do arbitration."

Perry Homes says, "Great. Arbitration it is."

The arbitration group paid by Perry Homes says, "Actually, the homeowners are right. You should have repaired the house. We're awarding them the cost of repairs, the lawyer fees, and money for their inconvenience."

Perry Homes: "No fair. Since they turned down the arbitration the first time, your ruling shouldn't count."

Proceed to the Supreme court from there.

SilentStrider: DamnYankees: Never preside over cases with anyone who donated to their political campaigns?

YES.

Sadly, in state judges who are elected, I think that's not feasible. It also means that it deprives politically active people of being judged by the people they like, which is sort os backwards. If you think someone would be a great judge so you give them money, you can no longer be judged by that person, the very person you think was such a great judge you gave money to elect?

I don't think that works. I think the answer is unelected judges.

SchlingFo: Proceed to the Supreme court from there.

Even if that is 100% true, that doesn't mean the homeowners should win on the merits. If that is true, the court should have enforced the arbitration, but even if they didn't enforce the arbitration, they still have to independently find who should win.

DamnYankees:

Nothing in that article, at all, about the merits of the case. I don't care how much the guy gave them, you shouldn't *assume* corruption.


Never? While I salute your confidence in the better nature of these people, that is still utter bullshiat.

SilentStrider: I wish Molly Ivins was alive to see this and write a column about it. She would NEVER have let these assholes forget about this.

They are assholes, but I don't Molly and her partisan writings in the least.

DamnYankees: I don't care how much the guy gave them, you shouldn't *assume* corruption.

A political party is involved. Always *assume* corruption.

DamnYankees: Even if that is 100% true, that doesn't mean the homeowners should win on the merits. If that is true, the court should have enforced the arbitration, but even if they didn't enforce the arbitration, they still have to independently find who should win.

Perry homes took it to court to have the arbitration overturned.

There is no way in hell that I could see a rational court overturning an arbitration that two groups went into openly and freely.

SchlingFo: There is no way in hell that I could see a rational court overturning an arbitration that two groups went into openly and freely.

Generally agree, but there's no way to know until/unless you read the decision and the contract between the two parties.

SchlingFo: DamnYankees: Nothing in that article, at all, about the merits of the case. I don't care how much the guy gave them, you shouldn't *assume* corruption.

Here are the basics behind the case:

The couple bought a house from Perry Homes. The house had a lot of things wrong with it that were covered by warranty.

The homeowners said, "Fix the house."

Perry Homes said, "Nope."

The homeowners said, "Fine, we're going to sue."

Perry Homes said, "Why don't you use our arbitration group instead?"

Couple: "No thanks."

A few weeks later, upon realizing that they couldn't afford to take on Perry Homes in court, the couple says, "Hey, we'll do arbitration."

Perry Homes says, "Great. Arbitration it is."

The arbitration group paid by Perry Homes says, "Actually, the homeowners are right. You should have repaired the house. We're awarding them the cost of repairs, the lawyer fees, and money for their inconvenience."

Perry Homes: "No fair. Since they turned down the arbitration the first time, your ruling shouldn't count."

Proceed to the Supreme court from there.

damn. do you always just make stuff up as you go? from here:

The Culls had complained that a house they purchased in 1996 for $233,730 from Perry Homes had structural and framing defects and should have been repaired under the warranties. They said the problems caused their home's appraised value to plummet to $41,000 by 2001.

The couple sued the builder and warranty companies in October 2000. The warranty companies, but not Perry Homes, asked for arbitration.

The Culls first turned it down, then changed their minds, and the case was set for arbitration. Perry Homes filed an appeal to stop the arbitration, but the courts declined to intervene.

The arbitrator awarded the Culls $800,000, which included the purchase price of their home, $200,000 for mental anguish; $200,000 in exemplary damages; and $110,000 in attorney fees. Perry Homes then appealed, saying the Culls had waived their arbitration rights.

IgG4: Electing judges is completely idiotic. They should be appointed for life just like Federal judges.

Yeah, it's a much better idea to install people for life and make it next to impossible to remove them from office. It's like we have 9 Popes on the SCOTUS...except I think Popes are actually elected.

Being a SCOTUS judge is one step away from playing God.

George Bush hates Bob and Jane Cull.

Megain:

Gee, Perry didn't want arbitration, but instead wanted it adjudicated by judges they had bought and paid for? Inconceivable!

Perry is the man in Texas. you might as well go after Bush in Texas.
Didn't he fund the swiftboat guys?

Dinki: Megain:

Gee, Perry didn't want arbitration, but instead wanted it adjudicated by judges they had bought and paid for? Inconceivable!

i'm not saying that perry homes is the good guy here. i merely pointed out the misrepresentations posted by SchlingFo. ignorance isn't a great way to support one's argument

SilentStrider:

I wish Molly Ivins was alive to see this and write a column about it. She would NEVER have let these assholes forget about this.


Ain't that the truth? RIP Molly.

Just doin' what comes naturally!

The problem with appointed judges is that they're also politically biased. Alito and Roberts, for example, were appointed by George W. Bush and they've shown their views to align rather thoroughly with his own.

Everything is politics. Ideally, there would be bans on party affiliation for those in the judicial branch, were it not blatantly unconstitutional.

Apparently, Texas is involved in a "Trading Places" type bet to see who can be more corrupt.

corrupt ass tunnels. all of them.

SchlingFo: DamnYankees: Nothing in that article, at all, about the merits of the case. I don't care how much the guy gave them, you shouldn't *assume* corruption.

Here are the basics behind the case:

The couple bought a house from Perry Homes. The house had a lot of things wrong with it that were covered by warranty.

The homeowners said, "Fix the house."

Perry Homes said, "Nope."

The homeowners said, "Fine, we're going to sue."

Perry Homes said, "Why don't you use our arbitration group instead?"

Couple: "No thanks."

A few weeks later, upon realizing that they couldn't afford to take on Perry Homes in court, the couple says, "Hey, we'll do arbitration."

Perry Homes says, "Great. Arbitration it is."

The arbitration group paid by Perry Homes says, "Actually, the homeowners are right. You should have repaired the house. We're awarding them the cost of repairs, the lawyer fees, and money for their inconvenience."

Perry Homes: "No fair. Since they turned down the arbitration the first time, your ruling shouldn't count."

Proceed to the Supreme court from there.



Pretty much. It has to be pretty open/shut and blatant in order for the company to lose in arbitration. That's why companies ALWAYS choose arbitration, and often have contracts (check your cell phone contract, etc) that specify arbitration.

It's wrong to assume the judges are corrupt without evidence, but it's pretty obvious here that they have no intention of holding up contract law.

Shvetz: Pretty much.

~sigh~

Megain,

I honestly don't see any important difference. The homeowners still had a legal right to arbitration, and won it. Why is the court suddenly deciding not to uphold that?

Unless I'm gravely mistaken, you can't permanently waive arbitration rights, unless you let the statute of limitations pass. I only have a GED in law, so I may be mistaken.

Judges should be elected based on 2/3rd vote in state legislature chambers. There we go.

Shvetz: Megain,
I honestly don't see any important difference

For one thing, this:

Perry Homes said, "Why don't you use our arbitration group instead?"

Couple: "No thanks."

Does not match this:

The couple sued the builder and warranty companies in October 2000. The warranty companies, but not Perry Homes, asked for arbitration.

It may make no difference in the long run, but the facts were garbled. Yes, I'm a nitpick. So sue me! =p

Shvetz: I honestly don't see any important difference.

you don't see a difference between SchlingFo saying that perry asked for and wanted arbitration when they really didn't and filed suit to stop it?

DamnYankees:

Nothing in that article, at all, about the merits of the case. I don't care how much the guy gave them, you shouldn't *assume* corruption.

If you have a conflict of interest in the case, especially one of this magnitude, you're supposed to recuse yourself from it. It isn't about corruption so much as it is about keeping up the appearance of having a fair and impartial system of justice.

But I thought contracts were always honored which was why things like extensive regulation weren't necessary? You mean to tell me that in the real world, contracts between a 'strong' (rich) person and a 'weak' (not-so-rich) little person are often ignored when they don't favor the 'strong?' Libertarians seem to tell me that this is unpossible!

burndtdan: i'd say the judges with a possible conflict of interests should recuse themselves, but... it's all of them.

Can they not recuse it to a higher court that is not of elected officials? E.g., state supreme or Federal district level?

RagingLeonard:

Yeah, it's a much better idea to install people for life and make it next to impossible to remove them from office.

Actually it is. It makes it so judges don't have to pander to local prejudices just to make sure they keep their jobs. If a law is blatently uncontstitutional, but popular, a judge who rules against it would find himself replaced by a judge who is willing to ignore principles in favour of political expedience.

WFern:

The problem with appointed judges is that they're also politically biased. Alito and Roberts, for example, were appointed by George W. Bush and they've shown their views to align rather thoroughly with his own.

That is a problem, yes, but it isn't quite as bad as having judges actively ignoring unconstitutional laws due to local popularity. At least with appointments you have to get past the opposition party which, assuming they have a spine (Fark you Senate Democrats), makes it so that judges have to be somewhat moderate in the way they rule.

A few years ago in Ohio, one of the justices of the state supreme court got caught drunk driving. Long story short, her case made it to the state supreme court, and the entire court had to recuse itself for conflict of interest because one of its members was a party...judges from the courts of appeals temporarily filled in. Point is, there is a precedent for entire courts to recuse itself...not sure what the rules are in Texas.

Murkanen: WFern:

The problem with appointed judges is that they're also politically biased. Alito and Roberts, for example, were appointed by George W. Bush and they've shown their views to align rather thoroughly with his own.

Pretty much everyone has some sort of political bias. The advantage to appointed judges is that they are separated from the masses and don't have to run for office. This theoretically allows them to do what is constitutional/moral/right without having to worry about potential blowback in their next election. With the addition of the massive amounts of money present in today's political world this also means they don't have to pander to get donations like so many of our elected officials do.

The only thing the founding fathers were more afraid of than a tyrant was a majority of stupid people. That's why this country is a republic, not a democracy.

Darwin's Prophet: Pretty much everyone has some sort of political bias. The advantage to appointed judges is that they are separated from the masses and don't have to run for office. This theoretically allows them to do what is constitutional/moral/right without having to worry about potential blowback in their next election. With the addition of the massive amounts of money present in today's political world this also means they don't have to pander to get donations like so many of our elected officials do.

The only thing the founding fathers were more afraid of than a tyrant was a majority of stupid people. That's why this country is a republic, not a democracy.

I think you meant to address the gentleman over here.

Megain: ignorance isn't a great way to support one's argument

Ignant! Ignant!

While appointed judges can be political, you can take some of the sting out of it using the "Missouri Non-Partisan Plan" which is common in several states. (It was first formulated in Missouri in the 19th Century then copied by a lot of states for a long time.) You have a neutral panel pick three candidates and then the governor can only pick from that list. He'll usually go with someone of his party, but you get a more qualified candidate typically.

Then you hold what amounts to a recall election a year or three later and see if the citizenry retain the judge picked. Then you hold these retention elections periodically. But all you decide is keep or remove. There's no opposing candidate. So large cash only gets involved when someone really wants rid of a judge -- but they can't just pick a more pliable alternative. They have to convince the public this judge is bad person, which can be tough. (They recently tried with a Mo Supreme Court judge I used to work for and his pro-retention margin was a defiant rebuke to the politicians...)

The GOP is still trying to throw this plan out in Missouri. Why isn't entirely clear, since we're about to flip sides and go Democratic.

But you ever notice you almost never hear stories of judicial corruption and conflicts of interest in states with non-partisan judicial selection schemes like this? And rarely in appointed judge states?

And you can put limit judges to mandatory retirement age, like 65, and clear the benches fairly regularly without making them grub for money for campaigns.

DamnYankees: Nothing in that article, at all, about the merits of the case. I don't care how much the guy gave them, you shouldn't *assume* corruption.

Well, the article does mention Arbitration. I'll bet that the "binding arbitration" was invoked through a clause in said developer's contract selling the place. As such, if the homr buyer had originally tried to sue, they would have said "your contract says arbitration!"

What they didn't expect was losing that arbitration, so they went whining to the same courts they tried to keep the customer out of. That REEKS of corruption.



Now, I read the rest of the thread and saw that they turned it down at first. All I'm seeing is "changed their minds". Does that mean they actually signed something saying they waved the right to arbitration? If not, they should still be able to go to arbitration. Furthermore, without that signature, they should still be able to sue in federal courts without a contract to stop them.

I smell an appeal to whichever court is next in line.

Darwin's Prophet:
The only thing the founding fathers were more afraid of than a tyrant was a majority of stupid people. That's why this country is a republic, not a democracy.

This would be great if there wasn't a majority of stupid people in Congress.

wejash: While appointed judges can be political, you can take some of the sting out of it using the "Missouri Non-Partisan Plan" which is common in several states. (It was first formulated in Missouri in the 19th Century then copied by a lot of states for a long time.) You have a neutral panel pick three candidates and then the governor can only pick from that list. He'll usually go with someone of his party, but you get a more qualified candidate typically.

Then you hold what amounts to a recall election a year or three later and see if the citizenry retain the judge picked. Then you hold these retention elections periodically. But all you decide is keep or remove. There's no opposing candidate. So large cash only gets involved when someone really wants rid of a judge -- but they can't just pick a more pliable alternative. They have to convince the public this judge is bad person, which can be tough. (They recently tried with a Mo Supreme Court judge I used to work for and his pro-retention margin was a defiant rebuke to the politicians...)

The GOP is still trying to throw this plan out in Missouri. Why isn't entirely clear, since we're about to flip sides and go Democratic.

But you ever notice you almost never hear stories of judicial corruption and conflicts of interest in states with non-partisan judicial selection schemes like this? And rarely in appointed judge states?

And you can put limit judges to mandatory retirement age, like 65, and clear the benches fairly regularly without making them grub for money for campaigns.

Why isn't this idea followed in all 50 states?

IgG4: Electing judges is completely idiotic. They should be appointed for life just like Federal judges.

They should be appointed for 6-10 years. They lose the right/left BS but they don't fall into any sort of comfortable treason like Scalia.