Saturday May 30, 2015
Jump to content
314 It's Your Call... Judges and campaign funds.
From the East Valley Trib....
(It is also long and complicated, so bear with me as I do my best to make it as clear as I can by quoting quite a lot of a long article.)
[A] case was brought by Randolph Wolfson, who ran for Mohave County Superior Court judge, unsuccessfully, in 2006 and 2008.
... the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ... voided [an] Arizona restriction [against judges taking a personal part in raising campaign funds.]
[But now in] a ruling that directly affects Arizona, the majority of the [Supreme] court rejected arguments by a Florida attorney that she has the right to raise money in her bid for election as a judge. She argued that prohibitions in that state -- just as there are in Arizona -- interfere with her bid for office.
But Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said the attorney there is missing the point.
"Judges are not politicians, even when they come to the bench by way of the ballot,'' he wrote.
"And a state’s decision to elect its judiciary does not compel it to treat judicial candidates like campaigners for political office,'' the chief justice continued. "A state may assure its people that judges will apply the law without fear or favor -- and without having personally asked anyone for money.''
The ruling effectively overturns [the] decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals [in the case was brought by Randolph Wolfson mentioned in the first paragraph of this quote.]
... George Riemer, executive director of the Commission on Judicial Conduct, said nothing in Wednesday's ruling keeps judges and candidates from waging campaigns, or even limits how much they can spend. The issue, he said, is how the money is raised.
"You can do it through a campaign committee,'' Riemer said. "You just can't be personally doing it.''
The issue has statewide implications.
Arizonans directly elect superior court judges in 12 of the state's 15 counties, just as they do to fill other positions, with candidates directly opposing each other.
In Pima, Pinal and Maricopa counties, superior court judges are chosen through a merit selection process and appointed by the governor. The same is true for judges of the state Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.
But they must stand for reelection on a retain-reject basis.
[Justice Roberts said] "Judicial candidates have a First Amendment right to speak in support of their campaigns,'' [but states] "have a compelling interest in preserving public confidence in their judiciaries.''
You may agree entirely with the decision of the Supreme Court, but on the other hand you may not. It's your call....
I put this in a second post because it is completely irrelevant, but it is connected to what I just said.
I could work with my machine and have to do some things on voice command. I don't do that because I don't want to. No particular reason.
But you'll never know how many times I thought of writing a funny little story about the future, a time when computers respond to voice commands. In it, I'd have some ordinary jerk who thought it was cute to set up everything in the house to operate on voice commands (that only responded to his voice, his of course, what else would some egotistical idiot do?). Then he got a cold and his voice changed, and he couldn't get out of the house when a flood came and carried it away.
Or something like that.
I didn't write it because it would be so trite, so expected.
People and computers only mix up to a certain point, and when we have to put up with over-zealous programmers to add "features" so that they can justify their existence, that point is reached very quickly.
"How will that all work?"
I have no idea.
"I had a lot of information on here yesterday and when I tried to post it guess what, it all disappeared."
Pat, I can't imagine how that happens, but I can tell you this: Whatever it is it has got to be something you do. Could you tell me exactly what you do (each step) when that happens? I may be able to track down what's happening.
"It seems to do that every time I write something with the word evans in it."
Well, if you would quit punching the computer that would probably quit. :-)
"How many illegals have been vaccinated for anything?"
None! And that is yet another reason why they must be stopped!
"Aren't they the ones that brought Smallpox and Tuberculosis back to us?"
Yes they are!
"That should be reason enough to get them out of the U.S."
No, it isn't! It's the reason they should be charged with a crime and put in prison for five years. Try that and see how many people swim the Rio Grande.
The way I look at this is that NSA, or anyone else, can't have its hands tied when it comes to using electronic methods of locating interactions between potential murderers, but the laws have to be written in such ways as to prevent the gathering of information which is not needed to do that. This is a knotty problem. There are no easy answers. And when someone like that creep who released all that information does it in the name of "rights" instead of notifying the FBI as they should, they should be punished for it — severely!
But the questions here is NOT whether it needs to be controlled, but who should be charged with the task of doing that?
"They couldn't be worse than a lot of drivers living in Payson."
Oh, yes they could!
The difference is that a human being, no matter how careless is able to react to situations which could not possibly be programmed into some computer chip. Just look at how many stupid things happen on your computer as a result of the fact that the attitude of far too many programmers is "Oh, I know better than they do; I'm going to make this thing work right whether they like it or not." It's a dangerous over-controlling attitude that drives me nuts! I spend incredible amounts of time trying to find out how to "turn off" things that they put in as "features."
So what will happen IF we are dumb enough to ever allow the stupid things to be foisted upon us is that the same %$#@! progressives who are trying to tell you what to eat, what to drink, and what toi think will then get into the act of making us all "perfect" drivers — according to what they think we should be. Take my advice and start telling Washington we don't want the d-----d things now, before it's too late. And tell corporations like Google to try making an honest buck!
From the Seattle Times
LOS ANGELES — Google revealed Monday that its self-driving cars have been in 11 minor traffic accidents since it began experimenting with the technology six years ago.
The company released the number after The Associated Press reported that Google had notified California of three collisions involving its self-driving cars since September, when reporting all accidents became a legal requirement as part of the permits for the tests on public roads.
The director of Google’s self-driving-car project wrote in a Web post that “Not once was the self-driving car the cause of the accident.”
[A little more data for you.] The Google cars have been rear-ended seven times, often when stopped “but also on the freeway,” the director wrote. In other collisions, the cars were sideswiped or “hit by a car rolling through a stop sign.”
The Questions Are….
If the dumb things are "self-driving," who do we blame for the accidents if we don't blame them. Do we call them "acts of God?"
Do you believe that last statement?
Since Google has been "experimenting with the technology" for six years, but had 3 three of the 11 "collisions" in just the last the last 7 months, would you accept those numbers?
How do feel about the idea of a computer driving a car down the road?
From the AP....
The NSA's collection and storage of U.S. landline calling records — times, dates and numbers but not content of the calls — was the most controversial program among many disclosed in 2013 by former NSA systems administrator Edward Snowden.
The unprecedented and unwarranted bulk collection of the entire U.S. population's phone records by the government is illegal because it wasn't authorized by Congress, a federal appeals court said Thursday....
A three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan permitted the National Security Agency program to continue temporarily as it exists, but it all but pleaded for Congress to better define where boundaries exist or risk "invasions of privacy unimaginable in the past."
The appeals court said if the government is correct in its legal arguments, it could also justify storing in bulk metadata associated with Americans' financial records, medical records and electronic communications, including email and social media information.
Republicans and Democrats in the House have agreed on a bill to end the government's bulk collection of the records, but Senate leaders are backing a competing measure that would maintain the status quo.
The House Judiciary Committee last month overwhelmingly passed the latest version of a bill known as the USA Freedom Act. The measure seeks to codify President Barack Obama's proposal to end the NSA's collection and storage of the phone records. Instead, it would allow the agency to request records held by telephone companies under a court order in terrorism investigations.
Under that proposal, the NSA might end up with access to even more data. As it stands, the program doesn't collect data on most mobile calls, but under a new arrangement, the NSA could request mobile records as needed from phone companies.
Nowhere in all this did anyone question whether or not Congress has the authority authorize such data collection, and there does not appear to be an move on the part of the "government," namely U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, to carry the fight to the Supreme Court.
The Questions Are....
Where do you think the line should be drawn? Who can we get to draw it? That is, if Congress doesn't do it, what then?
"Considering the phenomenon of "herd immunity" (I hope that is the correct term), it appears that the requirement for all children be vaccinated against certain diseases before entering public schools in not only wise but prudent."
I'd even go farther and call it necessary.
"The knowledge that I have about vaccinations tells me that the rumors of possible damage to children is specious and harmful to the public welfare. "
Right. It was originally based on rumors, was overblown in the news, spread of it own accord, and is unproven at best.
"It appears that the risk is equally small for vaccinations."
I am not one to interfere in free choice, but if that free choice does harm to others then my comment is simple. No vaccinations, no public schooling, and no payment to go elsewhere.
I see what you're getting at, Ron. There's a lot of terminology involved, a mix of "investment," "gifting," "donating," et al. And some genuine questions. Too much for me to untangle because I do not have any more facts than those which have been published. I'll just ask one question, and genuine one because I do not know the answer: Is Banner a non-profit?
Last login: Wednesday, May 20, 2015