Judge George

Fox News has revealed that billionaire George “Spooky Dude” Soros has been advocating for the creation of state committees to appoint non-federal judges rather than being elected by voters.

“Most non-federal judges around the country are selected by voters in elections,” the report says. “But some states use a process called “merit selection” in which a committee – often made up of lawyers – appoints judges to the bench instead.

“Merit selection would end the money race and get judges out of the fundraising business,” Lynn Marks, executive director of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts — a group that has received money from Soros’ Open Society Institute — told FoxNews.com.

“But critics say that if judges are picked by committee — often, a committee of lawyers — that will give left-wing judges the upper hand.

“Billionaire George Soros spends tens of millions each year supporting a range of liberal social and political causes, from drug legalization to immigration reform to gay marriage to abolishing the death penalty. But a less well-known Soros priority — replacing elections for judges with selection-by-committee — now has critics accusing him of trying to stack the courts.

“Soros has spent several million dollars in the past decade in an attempt to get more states to scrap elections and adopt the merit method. Supporters say it would allow judges to focus on interpreting the law rather than on raising campaign funds and winning elections.

“The left can’t get their agenda through the legislatures anymore … so they think they can get their agenda through by taking over the courts,” attorney Colleen Pero, author of a new report titled “Hijacking Justice,” told FoxNews.com.

“Pero’s report found that Soros, through his Open Society Institute fund, has given $45 million over the last decade to “a campaign to reshape the judiciary.” But that number is hotly contested by Justice at Stake, the group that got the most Soros money.

“It’s a horrendously bogus distortion of numbers,” Charlie Hall, a spokesman for Justice at Stake, told FoxNews.com. Hall said the $45 million figure included groups that dealt with legal issues but had no position on merit selection. He added that he could only identify $2 million from Soros that went to groups that actively support replacing elections with “merit selection.”

In an analysis of the Open Society Institute’s tax returns from the last ten years, FoxNews.com found more than $5 million was explicitly earmarked for projects about either “merit selection” or “judicial selection.”

“For example, OSI reported giving $90,000 to Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts in 2007 to expand and grow a coalition in support of merit selection. It also reported giving $50,000 to Justice at Stake in 2006 to support “public education regarding merit selection.”

“OSI gave another $7 million-plus to Justice at Stake, or to partner organizations with specific directions to support JAS’s activities. Some recipients of Soros’ money were eager to defend ‘merit selection,’ and said they only wished Soros would give more money to the cause. ‘We are very grateful for their support of our efforts,’ Marks said. Her group received more than $500,000 over the last decade, but has not received money from OSI since 2008.

“Elections, she added, discourage competent lawyers from becoming judges just because they aren’t good politicians. ‘They don’t put their name in for nominations because they think they don’t have the political connections or access to dollars.’ And judges, she said, should be kept apart from political forces. ‘Judges should resolve disputes based on evidence — they’re not supposed to be responsive to public pressure.’

“But Pero pointed to a study by prominent law professors that found elected judges were, if anything, more independent and took on larger workloads than judges appointed by committee.

“We began this project with the assumption that the data would demonstrate that appointed judges are better than elected judges,” the authors note, adding that after looking at their result: “It may be that elected judges are, indeed, superior to appointed judges.”

“And, Pero says, “merit selection” is inherently undemocratic.

“It would be a handful lawyers who would select judges… with elections, the people actually have a say.”

“Marks said it is wrong to call the merit selection un-democratic.

“Merit selection requires a change in the Constitution, so a bill must… go before the public. So when people say, ‘oh, you’re changing the way we vote’ — yes, but only if the people want to change the way we vote.”

This is an important report by Fox News. We have legal experts claiming that judges shouldn’t be subject to public pressure, popular opinion, which is true. But they should be held accountable for usurping powers not granted to them but to the legislative and executive branches of the government. State laws vary however and corruption is rife in areas where citizens don’t pay as much attention to the machinations of their specific judiciaries.

Right now, New Jersey is on the brink of – if it hasn’t done so already – appointing its first Muslim Superior Court justice. The Progressives bewail the corruption of Big Corporate money buying influence in the legislature – and now they want to extend that corruption to an already questionable legal system.

 We, the People, need to be on the alert and overrule “Judge George.”

 

An Unnecessary Evil

The Muslim Brotherhood, once outlawed in Egypt, has had a rebirth in its relations with the United States during the Arab Spring. Their friendship with America is now in full bloom here at the beginning of summer. According to Politico.com, the U.S. is formally resuming contact with the organization, thanks to its rise in political promise after the riots in Cairo and the hasty departure of former Pres. Hosni Mubarak, a pro-Israel tyrant.

One senior U.S. official told Reuters, on condition of anonymity, that the re-establishment of contact is ‘necessary.” Why “necessary”? How “necessary” can it be to aide and abet in the establishment of a worldwide caliphate?

“The political landscape in Egypt has changed, and is changing,” the official said. “It is in our interests to engage with all of the parties that are competing for parliament or the presidency.”

Founded in 1927, the Muslim Brotherhood has previously communicated with the U.S. through Brotherhood Members of Parliament who had been technically elected as independents. U.S. diplomats were instructed only to deal with Brotherhood members in their role as Members of Parliament, according to Politico.

Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Mohamed Saad el-Katatni told Reuters that no American contact with the group has yet been made, but he added: “We welcome such relationships with everyone because those relations will lead to clarifying our vision.”

In recent years, the Muslim Brotherhood claims to have renounced violence. The group is not considered a foreign terrorist organization by the United States – but organizations sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood, like Hamas, have not renounced violence against Israel.

Really? It must be only very recently. Sheikh Abdel-Rahman was a member of the Brotherhood and spent time in jail with leading Brotherhood member Sayyid Qutb. Qutb had very pronounced notions about overthrowing Western society – one way or another.

“We do not live by ourselves in this world,” Qutb wrote in Social Justice in Islam, “nor can we live in isolation from it. Thus our interests and our needs are interwoven with this present world, which is coverned by a certain form of civilization involving an outloook completely contradictory to that of Islam. This we shall see later. In one respect, this fact will slow down our pgoress along the path of renewing the true islamic form of live, and in another respect, it will lay additional responsibilities upon us.

“The importance of this last consideration is enhanced by the fact that this Western world with which our interests are interwoven is at the present moment [1953] stronger than we; we do not have today the control over it, or the strength equal to its strength, that we had in the first age of Islam. At the same time, it is hostile to us and in particular, hostile to our religion. Therefore, it wil not permit us to produce a new Islamic system or to renew a truly Islamic form of life, however great the effort we put forth. This result we could only hope for only if we had control of the Western world, if our strength were comparable to its, or if it were honest with us and with our religion to which we seek to return.

“But all this does not mean that return to the Islamic system is impossible. All that it means is that this is a great and difficult task, requiring extraordinary effort. Above all, it demands courage to believe in it, boldness to face the inevitable obstances, patience to endure the hard word demanded, and faith to believe that this is necessary for Islamic society and for mankind as a whole. It demands the fostering of a constructive and positive mentality, whose task will be not simply toe elevate the existing state of things, but rather to produce a new and perfect state. This is our task.”

Qutb went on to quote playwright George Bernard Shaw: “I forecast that the religion of Muhammad wil be accepted in Europe in the near future, for it has already started to gain some acceptance. The priests of the Middle Ages insisted on portraying Islam in the darkest colors, either out of ignorance, or from criminal bigotry. They went to extremes in their hatred of Muhammed in his religion; indeed, they held him to be the anti-Christ. For myself, I find it preferable to call Muhammad the savior of mankind, and I believe that if such a man were given authority over the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems and giving it peace and happiness.

“Europe has seen a great advance in the past years of the twentieth century, and has even started to respect the faith of Muhammad. It may be in the century that lies ahead Europe will make further progres, and will acknowledge the contribution of this faith towards of solution of its problems. Many among my own nation and among all European nations already belong to the religion of Muhammad, a fact which enables us to say that the conversion of Europe to Islam has already begun.” Nur al-Islam Magazine, 1934.

Politico notes that Obama’s 2012 Election campaign vanguard are worried about the Jewish vote. There aren’t that many who are actually concerned about the state of Israel; the young see the Jewish state as a pawn in a bid for global power. Obama’s infamous, dismissive conduct towards Prime Minister Netanyahu, his campaign speeches to the pre-Arab Spring crowds in Cairo, his statements declaring that he’s a “citizen of the world” are sufficient proof of his state of mind. His opening up diplomatic relations – before they’re even actually elected (although there’s little doubt of it) – with the Muslim Brotherhood is one more piece of evidence of our “President’s” inclination towards a worldwide Islamic caliphate.

Egypt will hold parliamentary elections in September, and the country’s military government has promised an election for president by the end of this year.  The race is on for our own 2012 elections. Will our own elections come in time to dislodge this near-traitorous president before the Islamists solidify their evil plans and plunge the world into a global tyranny – and will the Conservatives produce a leader strong enough to stave off the threat?