• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

George Soros trying to "stack the courts"

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
Billionaire George Soros Trying To Stack the Courts, Critics Say - FoxNews.com

I have a couple of problems with this. For one, giving $45 million dollars to try and get judges that agree with you is VERY activist. Secondly, I hate how we've accepted the idea that if you can't get what you want through the legislative process, you know, democratically, you file lawsuits and try things like this, implementing "merit selection". I'm not picking on anyone here but this has been a tactic played by the Left since the FDR administration. You see it in cases like Everson, Lamb's Chapel, Roev. Wade, etc...

My biggest problem with this is tied to the second I just listed. I have a real problem with lawyers selecting judges instead of electing them democratically. Despite the idea that somehow this will make these judges "more fair" studies show quite the opposite. This idea is undemocratic, is elitist, and has no place in American politics.

Thoughts?
 

Unity

Living in Ikoria
Staff member
I read the article, but I'm a little conflicted in my thoughts.

For one, Soros is obviously behind this...but as the article mentioned, he's behind other issues. Part of me says that giving money to an issue you support is nothing new, and from what I read in the article Soros himself didn't start any of these groups. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

Another issue that comes to mind is that while Soros is liberal, that's far from making every lawyer a liberal. So I just find a flaw with arguing that this procedural change is inherently beneficial for one political party or the other.

Overall, I tend to agree with Cap'n that elections would probably be best for judge selection. However, there's one problem in the background of all of this that I wish would be changed. When voting for local judges, I read up on their qualifications, rulings, etc. Even in doing that, the amount of information about them is very limited. I usually can only find the Missouri Bar Association's opinions of them, and recommendations on voting. I make my own decision based on the limited info that I find. Newspapers, etc. don't talk about judges really.

My point is that when citizens are allowed to vote for judges, I think there needs to be more information about them easily available, and that it needs to be emphasized more. There are certain positions that I can understand being appointed instead of elected, because the voting population just isn't informed. This needs to change with judges.

CO, just asking out of curiosity, do you think that the Supreme Court should be elected instead of appointed? I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on that level.
 

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
I agree with the appointment process for federal judges, especially at the Supreme Court level. These judges become at least to some extent immune from politics and do not render decisions based on pressure of being reelected. To some extent, and thus why this issue is brought up during presidential elections, we have a say so in what kind of justices we have because of who we elect as president. In my opinion, the selections of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito were among some of the best decisions President Bush made as president.
 

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
This is a thread about George Soros and the implementation of merit selection. This isn't a thread about the Koch brothers. Anything alleged actions by the Koch brothers neither supports nor negates the OP. Let's stick to the topic at hand, shall we?
 

Tucker

Lion Rampant
Haha, you can't shut me up that way. I contrasted Soros and a real serious threat, the VERY VERY activist billionaire Koch brothers. There's nothing off-topic whatsoever about that. Would you like me to post a hundred examples of you doing the same type of thing?
 
Last edited:

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
lol, those evil Kochs spreading the awful idea of the constitution protecting individual liberty and capitalism. Yeah, that comparison fails.

Soros, on the other hand, is quite an interesting subject. From how he got his money, insider trading conviction, funding all sorts of left-wing extremists, not to mention his youth working with Nazis.

But somehow he is a hero to those who want to fundamentally destroy the US by dismantling the very thing that makes the US exceptional: the US Constitution.
 

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
Haha, you can't shut me up that way. I contrasted Soros and a real serious threat, the VERY VERY activist billionaire Koch brothers. There's nothing off-topic whatsoever about that. Would you like me to post a hundred examples of you doing the same type of thing?
Actually it is off topic, but I'll play your silly game.

You said George Soros isn't a problem but the Koch brothers are.

1)How do you reconcile both sides spending millions of dollars, being extremely activist in pushing their agenda, yet only one side is a problem?

2) If George Soros spends millions of dollars pushing an agenda, how does showing the Koch brothers doing the same thing negate Soros' actions? I mean really, that sounds like the "I know you are but what am I" defense.
 

PretzelCorps

Registered Member
I'm going to be disappointed with everyone in this thread if it turns into 'my billionaire is more legitimate than your billionaire.' Either all billionaires can buy their way through politics, or no billionaires can buy their way through politics; it's one way or the other. You cannot legitimately argue in favour of one billionaire and lambast another, just because you politically agree with one.

I, for one, think all billionaires should be unable to buy their way through politics.
 
Last edited:

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
I'm going to be disappointed with everyone in this thread if it turns into 'my billionaire is more legitimate than your billionaire.' Either all billionaires can buy their way through politics, or no billionaires can buy their way through politics; it's one way or the other. You cannot legitimately argue in favour of one billionaire and lambast another, just because you politically agree with one.

I, for one, think all billionaires should be unable to buy their way through politics.
I could not agree more with the highlighted part. The reason I posted this was my concern with merit selection and the impact that has on the democratic process of electing our judges. Not "George Soros is evil but the Koch brothers aren't".

I don't want to discuss the Koch brothers, I didn't make a thread about the Koch brothers. My concern with this is Soros and his funding of attempting to do away with democracy.

EDIT: and let me be clear, I have no problem with supporting certain judges. The primary reason we have the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment is to protect political speech. Spending money to advance a political position is freedom of speech. Trying to circumvent the democratic process is not.
------
So I read through these links and what I gather from them is this: "Koch brothers exposed: they're contributing money to conservative politicians and think tanks"....I don't understand how that's a problem. If you donate to conservative think tanks and organizations you're a problem, but if you donate to Moveon.org and create Air America you're a good guy? That's the "logic" that's being espoused here?

More importantly, what I linked was an attempt to do away with the democratic process of elections. Nowhere in any of those links did I see any of that.

As someone stated in the last link which was not news but a message board like this one, I'm a believer in the First Amendment, I love the First Amendment like I love the rest of the Constitution. I don't indict the Koch brothers or Soros for spending money that advance their agenda. Good for them. It's up to the citizenry to educate themselves and weed through the bullshit. What I do have a problem with is trying to do away with elections to try and promote your political agenda.
 
Last edited:
Top