The Avery case was an absurd decision in the first place – glossing over differences in policy language, various state laws, and the absence of credible evidence that aftermarket parts are inferior. The real surprise is that the Illinois Supreme Court struggled with the decision.
The issue raised here has nothing to do with the Avery case – that is, should judges EVER be elected to office, as opposed to appointed for a lifetime or lengthy term. That\’s a legislative issue, for state-by-state determination.
I have a real problem with this story, and the very clear bias that the writer is showing in writing it. The IJ needs to clean up its act if it\’s going to be believable. Here are the problems:
1. \”The case raised an important question about judicial ethics: does the Constitution entitle average citizens a day in court before an impartial judge?\” That\’s absurd. The issue was whether or not a judge who was elected could be forced to recuse himself from a case involving a campaign donor. The reporter is taking the plaintiff\’s attorney\’s description of the issue at face value without any critical evaluation of it.
2. \”It was filed on behalf of State Farm customers who won a class-action lawsuit accusing the company of fraud for refusing to pay for top-quality replacement parts on damaged cars.\” I don\’t even know how to begin to respond to this emotionally charged, one sided statement of the facts of the case. The trial court was one of ATRA\’s \’judicial hellholes\’ – might that not be relevant? \’Top quality parts\’? Come on now – no one has demonstrated that aftermarket parts are in any was inferior to OEM parts.
This is not untypical of unprofessional and biased stories that appear in the IJ. I think it\’s time that they clean up their act and start being at least a little bit objective.
LATELY THERE HAS BEEN ALOT OF CORRUPTION WITH JUDGES INVOLVING STATE FARM.
FUNNY HOW PEOPLE PAY A LOT OF MONEY FOR INSURANCE COVERAGE, ONLY TO BE DENIED THEIR VALID CLAIM. i WOUNDER HOW MANY JUDGES AND LAWYERS STATE FARM HAS IN THEIR BACK POCKETS
While the argument over details of this case is valid the core issue is can we trust the judgement of a judge who has received contributions ie money from anyone. How could a judge be objective while driving the mercedes one of the principals has paid for. What if you are one of the principals and you didn\’t contribute. So the golden rule prevails he who has the gold, rules. This is a dangerous slippery slopes that terminates in the destruction of this nation.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Yeah, but the article was by the AP.
And that\’s and excuse? Doesn\’t the editor have a responsibility for the content?
The Avery case was an absurd decision in the first place – glossing over differences in policy language, various state laws, and the absence of credible evidence that aftermarket parts are inferior. The real surprise is that the Illinois Supreme Court struggled with the decision.
The issue raised here has nothing to do with the Avery case – that is, should judges EVER be elected to office, as opposed to appointed for a lifetime or lengthy term. That\’s a legislative issue, for state-by-state determination.
I have a real problem with this story, and the very clear bias that the writer is showing in writing it. The IJ needs to clean up its act if it\’s going to be believable. Here are the problems:
1. \”The case raised an important question about judicial ethics: does the Constitution entitle average citizens a day in court before an impartial judge?\” That\’s absurd. The issue was whether or not a judge who was elected could be forced to recuse himself from a case involving a campaign donor. The reporter is taking the plaintiff\’s attorney\’s description of the issue at face value without any critical evaluation of it.
2. \”It was filed on behalf of State Farm customers who won a class-action lawsuit accusing the company of fraud for refusing to pay for top-quality replacement parts on damaged cars.\” I don\’t even know how to begin to respond to this emotionally charged, one sided statement of the facts of the case. The trial court was one of ATRA\’s \’judicial hellholes\’ – might that not be relevant? \’Top quality parts\’? Come on now – no one has demonstrated that aftermarket parts are in any was inferior to OEM parts.
This is not untypical of unprofessional and biased stories that appear in the IJ. I think it\’s time that they clean up their act and start being at least a little bit objective.
I am shocked, SHOCKED, to learn that people affected by juducial elections participate in the political process!
And quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck…(Certain justice logic might conclude it\’s a turkey…)
LATELY THERE HAS BEEN ALOT OF CORRUPTION WITH JUDGES INVOLVING STATE FARM.
FUNNY HOW PEOPLE PAY A LOT OF MONEY FOR INSURANCE COVERAGE, ONLY TO BE DENIED THEIR VALID CLAIM. i WOUNDER HOW MANY JUDGES AND LAWYERS STATE FARM HAS IN THEIR BACK POCKETS
While the argument over details of this case is valid the core issue is can we trust the judgement of a judge who has received contributions ie money from anyone. How could a judge be objective while driving the mercedes one of the principals has paid for. What if you are one of the principals and you didn\’t contribute. So the golden rule prevails he who has the gold, rules. This is a dangerous slippery slopes that terminates in the destruction of this nation.