Numerous sources report allegations that 131 Federal Judges presided over cases in which they had a direct financial interest. A Colorado Judge allegedly decided a case in Comcast's favor. His family owns more than $50,000 USD in Comcast stock.

https://www.newsmax.com/us/federal-judges-recusal-cases/2021/09/28/id/1038261/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10038643/131-federal-judges-broke-law-hearing-cases-involving-companies-financial-in.html

If these allegations are true, the sacred doctrine of an independent judiciary is truly in jeopardy (my opinion).

More importantly, the Supreme Court has reasoned that the mere appearance of impropriety is enough to limit campaign finance contributions by individuals, which were previously predicted by the First Amendment. See Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

Apparently, the appearance of impropriety is only a concern in regards to John Doe's conduct.

We haven't had an independent judiciary in quite some time.

I was admitted to practice in the fall of 2001; by day 2 of 2002, I knew 'blind & impartial justice' was just a novel concept. The whole system, the WHOLE, is ripe with corruption; it's why politicians, their families, & even preferred donors can get away with anything b/c there's no accountability in the last "civil" defense before tyranny: The Rule of Law.

Godlessness. These people believe they answer to no higher power. It's the downfall of America.

Ag in Tiger Country said:

---

I was admitted to practice in the fall of 2001; by day 2 of 2002, I knew 'blind & impartial justice' was just a novel concept. The whole system, the WHOLE, is ripe with corruption; it's why politicians, their families, & even preferred donors can get away with anything b/c there's no accountability in the last "civil" defense before tyranny: The Rule of Law.

---

If you are talking about the judicial system, especially on the state level, you're full of crap.

Martin Cash said:

---

Ag in Tiger Country said:

---

I was admitted to practice in the fall of 2001; by day 2 of 2002, I knew 'blind & impartial justice' was just a novel concept. The whole system, the WHOLE, is ripe with corruption; it's why politicians, their families, & even preferred donors can get away with anything b/c there's no accountability in the last "civil" defense before tyranny: The Rule of Law.

---

If you are talking about the judicial system, especially on the state level, you're full of crap.

---

He lives in Louisiana…need more?

only the conservative judges will be held to account.

Sid Farkas said:

---

only the conservative judges will be held to account.

---

Apparently judges all the way from LBJ (raging liberal) to Donald Trump (Lord and Savior) are involved. Besides, is a judge really conservative if they are taking money from Comcast, Disney, Coca Cola, etc?

Martin Cash said:

---

Ag in Tiger Country said:

---

I was admitted to practice in the fall of 2001; by day 2 of 2002, I knew 'blind & impartial justice' was just a novel concept. The whole system, the WHOLE, is ripe with corruption; it's why politicians, their families, & even preferred donors can get away with anything b/c there's no accountability in the last "civil" defense before tyranny: The Rule of Law.

---

If you are talking about the judicial system, especially on the state level, you're full of crap.

---

I have no idea why you're saying this. I have almost no criminal experience, so I won't comment on that, but my civil litigation experience is rather vast, though (mostly) ending about a decade ago. Maybe you have more, but the MAIN reason mine stopped was exactly the quote you referenced. And my practice was almost exclusively state court. I had maybe a dozen federal court matters, about one a year or so on average (although I did cover some hearings there).

Corruption doesn't solely mean taking bribes or even campaign contributions. It may mean being lazy, wanting to unreasonably clear a docket for no good reason, not allow a case to go to trial (again, for no good reason), a clear bias against one party or another -- and to be honest, I've seen biases by judges IN FAVOR of my clients. I've seen judges accept evidence at Summary Judgment hearings, refuse to allow a court reporter in the court when evidence was taken at hearings where testimony was proper (they didn't want a record at all), and many other shenanigans. I've seen judges order parties that weren't even named, served, or subpoenaed to do things -- not even on the motion of counsel. They just said, "I'm going to order them to..."

You're the one who's full of crap unless you're calling him out on the "whole" thing. Maybe that was a bit of hyperbole, but one who's seen what I've seen can be forgiven for using that term. It would take months to reconstruct records (if that were even possible) of judges I've appeared in front of. However, I could come up with a list of reputable ones on a single piece of paper. Maybe not by name, but rough time, court, and vague description. ONE PAGE.