Judges win first amendment rights in Minnesota

The Red Star laments a federal appeals court decision "pav[ing] the way Tuesday for potential knock-down partisan fights among judicial candidates in Minnesota with a ruling that will allow candidates to align with political parties and ask for campaign donations."

The ruling by the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated longstanding restrictions on Minnesota's judicial candidates that attempted to prevent campaigns from affecting a judge's impartiality. The court said those restrictions violate First Amendment rights.

Weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth was heard from leftist outposts such as the Red Star editorial offices, and the majority of current judicial chambers.

It's interesting how the Minnesota DFL (democrat) party chair believes the ruling is in line with the constitution, but not an appropriae policy:

DFL Party chairman Brian Melendez, a lawyer, said he thought the decision was "correct as a matter of constitutional law, but I still think it's bad policy." Melendez said he thinks the Minnesota tradition of restraint in bringing parties and issues into judicial races has produced "a very talented and nonpoliticized judiciary."

Does policy trump constitutionality? We think not. In an unbiased quote, the reporter provides an "acerbic" quote from conservative hero Bill cooper, chairman of TCF banks:

Bill Cooper, chairman of the TCF Corp. and a former Republican Party chairman who has helped lead the court challenge since 1997 and who spent about $100,000 to help Wersal's cause, cheered the ruling. He offered this acerbic analysis: "How shocking! The courts said that somebody running for election can say what they think. The Founding Fathers will roll over in their graves."

It is amazing when you think about it. The Democrats are the party of hypocrisy. They will wail and moan at this decision only because they know they have a lock on the judiciary, and this is their remaining refuge for enacting their policies (judicial lawmaking).

The liberal's reaction to this ruling is similar to their horror at the rise of competition for the main stream media (MSM) by the conservatives, through alternate media sources such as blogs. The libs knew they owned the MSM, and they don't like competing viewpoints one bit. They're like cornered rats.

Imagine that - voting for a judge and actually knowing what he or she stands for! If it doesn't matter what judges personal viewpoints are, as many on the left claim, then why are they so exercised about this decision? It will be difficult for many on the left to accept, but that's just a bonus for the "right thinkers".