Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

California Judge Routes Campaign Robocalls Through Colorado

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the parsing-the-point-finely dept.

Privacy 191

Thomas Hawk writes "Victoria Kolakowski, a current sitting law judge at the California PUC, is running for Alameda Superior Court judge in California. As part of her campaign she is robodialing people in California with a pre-recorded message. The only problem is that in Califorina robodials are actually illegal unless first introduced by a non-recorded natural person who gains consent to play the call. Ironically, the agency set up to protect our privacy and enforce this law, the California PUC, is the very agency where Kolakowski works today. Kolakowski originally apologized for the calls but then later deleted messages on her Facebook account from people objecting to her use of these calls. Now Kolakowski is trying to argue that because 'technically' she is routing her calls through Colorado from outside the state that her robodials are actually legal."

cancel ×

191 comments

go figure. (5, Insightful)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477146)

Politician thinks the rules only apply to other people. News at 11.

Re:go figure. (2, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477320)

Oh ya, without question. This level of hypocrisy is as old as civilization itself. My only question is this. Just how much more of this BS are people willing to take. People, cities, states, nations. You would think there would be an eventual breaking point, yes? It couldn't come sooner to spank these bastards out of office!

Re:go figure. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32477374)

Robodialing political messages is not illegal. Almost everyone does it. The submitter should check his facts.

Now it's another thing if it should be illegal.

Re:go figure. (5, Informative)

BattleApple (956701) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477464)

The use of such a device by any person, either individually or acting as an officer, agent, or employee of a person or corporation operating automatic dialing-announcing devices, is subject to this article.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=85394713794+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve [ca.gov]

2872(d) lists exemptions.. I don't see anything regarding political messages

Re:go figure. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32477696)

rock on battleapple! parent AC shamed and dejected, The BURN, THE BURN!

Re:go figure. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32477744)

AC is thinking of the National Do Not Call list, which includes an exemption for political entities. The California state law provides no such exemption.

Re:go figure. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32478206)

Full law shows lots of wiggle room - go figure:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=puc&group=02001-03000&file=2871-2876 [ca.gov] (parent link is blank)

Jurisdiction opening:

"2872. (a) The connection of automatic dialing-announcing devices to a telephone line is subject to this article and to the jurisdiction, control, and regulation of the commission."

Allowance for calling an organization's members (political parties?):

"2872. (d) This article does not prohibit the use of an automatic dialing-announcing device by any person exclusively on behalf of any of the following: (2) An exempt organization under the Bank and Corporation Tax Law (Part 11 (commencing with Section 23001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code) for purposes of contacting its members."

This looks like the biggest exception:

"2872. (f) This article does not apply to any automatic dialing-announcing device that is not used to randomly or sequentially dial telephone numbers but that is used solely to transmit a message to an established business associate, customer, or other person having an established relationship with the person using the automatic dialing-announcing device to transmit the message, or to any call generated at the request of the recipient."

Re:go figure. (4, Interesting)

Thomas Hawk (796343) | more than 4 years ago | (#32478318)

I was the one that Kolakowski robodialed. I am not an "established business associate, customer, or other person having an established relationship with" her, therefore this exception would not apply to her. If you want to try and argue that the same political party would constitute an "established" relationship (which is a total stretch) then in order to be of my same party, Kolakowski would have to be a registered Libertarian like I am. I doubt she is. But here again, if political party affiliation was enough, then couldn't someone who was a Democrat simply robodial all of the Democrats in California with an unsavory auto warranty scam phone call? As I read this law there is no wiggle room at all. She is breaking the law and she should admit it, apologize and pledge not to use robodialers in the state of California in the future. If she'd like to use them then she needs to work to change the laws in the State to allow them, rather then simply ignore a law that she doesn't like or that is inconvenient for her. But even if she can find some wiggle room or some minor technicality to skate by the intent of this law, certainly the ethical thing for a candidate for judge to do would be to abide by the spirit of the law which is to stop these annoying and harassing cals in the State of California.

Re:go figure. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32478350)

Are you a California voter?

Re:go figure. (1)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32478698)

Are you trying to imply that being a voter would have any relevance here?

Re:go figure. (3, Interesting)

faedle (114018) | more than 4 years ago | (#32478352)

Interesting.

Isn't the stance of the Libertarian party that such laws are a violation of people's freedom of speech and "robocalls" should be legal?

Re:go figure. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32478264)

She is probably (hopefully?) only calling registered voters who provided their phone number when they registered. Qualified candidates can (for a small fee) purchase a list of registered voters which includes phone numbers (if the voter optionally provided one).

Exception f:

"(f) This article does not apply to any automatic
dialing-announcing device that is not used to randomly or
sequentially dial telephone numbers but that is used solely to
transmit a message to an established business associate, customer, or
other person having an established relationship with the person
using the automatic dialing-announcing device to transmit the
message, or to any call generated at the request of the recipient."

http://law.justia.com/california/codes/puc/2871-2876.html [justia.com]

Re:go figure. (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477798)

You would think there would be an eventual breaking point, yes?

And when that is reached, you get a revolution, which usually ends up putting even nastier people in power, since a revolution temporarily suspends the rule of law, giving the advantage to ruthless people since there's no longer anyone capable of reining them in.

You can't win, you can't break even, you can't stop playing. The game is stacked against you from the very laws of thermodynamics to the notion of "corporate personhood".

Re:go figure. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32478564)

And when that is reached, you get a revolution, which usually ends up putting even nastier people in power, since a revolution temporarily suspends the rule of law, giving the advantage to ruthless people since there's no longer anyone capable of reining them in.

From your response, I'm assuming that, just out of conviction, you speak with a British accent, despite having been born and in raised in the US.

Re:go figure. (5, Interesting)

msobkow (48369) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477340)

Call centers are our main customers at my current job. You wouldn't believe how creative people get, trying to bypass the laws that restrict use of certain dialing technologies (robo-dialers, predictive dialers, progressive dialers, etc.) As a software provider we have to implement options that support those legal restrictions, but a huge number of clients want to know how to disable those features because they've come up with a creative reason why the law doesn't apply to them. We advise them not to do it, but in the end, it's the call center that's in control.

And in the other direction... (4, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | more than 4 years ago | (#32478054)

in my past life, I worked for a company responsible for the stuff used to create/implement "touch-tone hell."

When will organizations get a clue - if people don't want to be called, you're only going to piss them off by calling them, and the results will be counter-productive. If you piss me off by making me spend my valuable time going though some poorly designed menu system, only to run into a dead end/disconnect, you can bet that when I do get in touch with a human, I'm going to make sure they get to spend lots of their paid time handling my call.

Re:And in the other direction... (5, Funny)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 4 years ago | (#32478370)

I guess they will get the hint when people stop automatically hanging up on them and start burning resources by keeping the person on line for hours then declaring they aren't interested.

For instance, I received a third call from an organization soliciting charitable donation. I have already told this organization to take me off the calling list and any other lists they have with my name or number on it two times (I don't do phone donations). After telling this third guy about being order to remove me from the lists, he promptly explained that he wasn't subject to the do not call registry because they were a charity. Of course the the laws concerning removal from calling lists upon request supersede the DNC registry and are a combination of state an federal laws. Well, after this authoritative answer detailing how the laws don't apply to him, I said "Oh, I didn't know that, then asked him to explain what he was representing. I then asked a crap load of stupid questions to drag out his time on the phone. I think I tied him up for about 20 minutes before he started getting anxious about a large donation. I asked if a manager was available to sit in on the call as I wanted to make sure they understood why I was making the donation. Sure enough, after another 10 minutes or so, I got someone on the phone claiming to be a supervisor. I then explained that because I requested to be taken off the list and all lists they were associated with, their call allowed me to file a formal complain with the public utilities commission of the state and I would be entitled to a $500 award for each of their violations of state law. This happened twice so it would be $1000 total and in lieu of collecting, I am donating this $1000 in spirit by not filing the complaint at that time under the provision that I never be contacted by them or their call center again. The manager attempted to asset they weren't subject to the DNC registry again and I explained that the provisions I am speaking of is under state law and existed long before the Do Not Call registry ever has and referred them to the Ohio public utilities commission and the Ohio office of consumer counsil for further explanation. Little was I aware of at the time that Ohio law allows for $2000 fines to be awarded to the person now.

I never received a call from them again. All in all, I took up about 40 minutes of their time in order to tell them not to call me again or I would take legal action. If everyone, or even 10% of the people did this, it would become economically unfeasible to continue calling people who do not want to be called. And that's without resorting to court or legal actions.

FTFY (3, Insightful)

copponex (13876) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477418)

Person thinks the rules only apply to other people. News at 11.

Hypocrisy isn't restricted to politics. It's just easier to see in people other than yourself.

Re:FTFY (4, Insightful)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 4 years ago | (#32478158)

Indeed, but seeing a politician break the law is like seeing a doctor smoke, a priest rape a kid, my parents doing it, a cop assaulting someone... it just hurts more.

Re:go figure. (5, Insightful)

Have Brain Will Rent (1031664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477472)

Her later actions make it appear she is unable to admit when she has made an error. Just the kind of person you don't want sitting on the bench.

She should have the book thrown at her... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32477638)

But just knowing how the judicial machine works, I doubt she'll even be charged.

On behalf of all native Coloradoans (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32477734)

I say: Fuck you, California, fuck you and your half-cocked, dimwitted and/or corrupted robo-calling judges, and stay the fuck away from OUR state. Go invade Utah or somewhere else.

Re:On behalf of all native Coloradoans (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32478166)

I say: Fuck you, California, fuck you and your half-cocked, dimwitted and/or corrupted robo-calling judges, and stay the fuck away from OUR state. Go invade Utah or somewhere else.

Does that mean you are willing to give up your state's share of the ~$18 billion that california loses to federal taxation?
Yeah, that's right - cali pays $18 billion dollars more in fed taxes than the state receives in federal funds.

Re:On behalf of all native Coloradoans (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32478508)

Oh noes! That's socialism!!! The people of California are being robbed! I mean, it's not like the federal government provides any services to individual states or to the entire nation as a whole, or to individual residents of states that aren't accounted for in the amount that "the state receives in federal funds". I'm sure that amount considers defense of the country (which California is a part of), California's share of the benefits of federally funded research (not just the amount of that money spent in California), all kinds of federal food subsidies, the taxes that California charges to recipients of federal funds through all manner of federal programs, etc. Nope, it's just the evil federal government (irony aside, the Federal government is pretty terrible in lots of ways, but I don't think it's actually any worse than most state governments) stealing from poor old California. Boo Hoo!

Re:On behalf of all native Coloradoans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32478516)

I say: Fuck you, California... stay the fuck away from OUR state.

California doesn't want your state. Your weather sucks, your agriculture sucks, your scenery sucks. This applies to your state and the other 48 as well.

Re:go figure. (2, Informative)

green1 (322787) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477800)

Politician thinks the rules only apply to other people. News at 11.

Where I live, they're right. All telemarketing and Robo-calling laws in Canada have specific exceptions for political campaigns...

Of course as soon as I get one from a candidate I immediately remove them from my list of parties to vote for in that election...

Re:go figure. (2, Insightful)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 4 years ago | (#32478632)

You're too generous. I remove them from my list of parties to vote for ever again.... Mr. Harper and his cronies have been the only ones stupid enough to try it, though....

here's a clue, politicos: if my vote is worth courting, then it's worth having a human do it. it's patently insulting that you think it's ok to have a computer dial my phone number. more than that: it's illegal. I only have one phone number, and it's a cellular phone. exemptions for political and charity organizations don't include cellular phones.

Re:go figure. (1)

berzerke (319205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32478668)

I do this too. The problem is when all the candidates in a particular race have called me, and this happens quite often. I can't do a write in. The best I can do is not vote for anyone in that race, which doesn't really send any message. Ugggh!!!

Vote (5, Insightful)

Local ID10T (790134) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477162)

Well, now we know who not to vote for...

Re:Vote (4, Insightful)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477224)

Unfortunately, when we rule out all the scumbags and lowlifes, we are left with nobody worth voting for. Oh well <flips coun>

Re:Vote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32477452)

Unfortunately, when we rule out all the scumbags and lowlifes, we are left with nobody worth voting for. Oh well <flips coun>

(insert half-assed, thinly-disguised pro-anarchy, anti-government litany by a random solipsistic survivalist kook here)

Re:Vote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32477574)

Unfortunately, when we rule out all the scumbags and lowlifes, we are left with nobody worth voting for. Oh well <flips coun>

(insert half-assed, thinly-disguised pro-anarchy, anti-government litany by a random solipsistic survivalist kook here)

Why settle for that, when you can have a whole-assed, non-disguised pro-anarchy litany by highly intelligent, reasonable, and well-educated people who would prefer to engage with society and improve it rather than withdraw and hope for disaster? Or is that not strawmannish enough?

Politics as a Dead End:
Part One [c4ss.org] , Part Two [c4ss.org]

Re:Vote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32477826)

Maybe it's best to show them that they do not have your support and vote third party?

Re:Vote (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477964)

There are plenty of people left when you rule out scumbags, and lowlifes.

However, the people left have basically no chance of getting elected, and you'd waste your vote.

The vast majority of such people are not running for office.

Who (other than a scumbag/lowlife) would want to get elected and have to work with scumbags and lowlifes, anyways?

Re:Vote (1)

WillDraven (760005) | more than 4 years ago | (#32478156)

However, the people left have basically no chance of getting elected, and you'd waste your vote.

Geez, will everybody stop saying that already? How are you NOT throwing away your vote by voting for a scumbag? Vote for the person you believe will do the job best. We're never going to break the two party duopoly unless we stop throwing our hands up and saying "well what can we do?"

VOTE FOR A THIRD PARTY.

Re:Vote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32478198)

will everybody stop saying that already?

Such an impassioned plea! I am sure everyone in the world will read your post, see its wisdom, and start voting for third parties now.

Re:Vote (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32478232)

I sure am. Next time I vote, I'll write in "Third Party". Not sure who this is, but they sound good.

Re:Vote (2, Insightful)

berzerke (319205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32478682)

It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.- E. Debs

Re:Vote (2, Funny)

michaelhood (667393) | more than 4 years ago | (#32478196)

Oh well <flips coun>

Poor coun. :(

Re:Vote (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477310)

"Well, now we know who not to vote for..."

And whose story to forward throughout teh intarwebs so this becomes the only thing the bitch is known for.

Re:Vote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32477352)

Unfortunately, that describes most elections. Usually you have to vote against the incumbent, then vote against the whackjob candidates, and in a very rare case there might be someone left who's not completely objectionable.

Re:Vote (1)

bugi (8479) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477528)

We know her election would benefit those who can afford lawyers to parse the law to the point it is meaningless.

Re:Vote (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477622)

Like she's worried about the surely less than 0.1% of people who are actually informed about this.

Who not to vote for: Meg Whitman: also robocalling (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 4 years ago | (#32478114)

I just received a robocall (no human, no incoming caller-id) in support of Meg Whitman.

Re:Who not to vote for: Meg Whitman: also robocall (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32478356)

Even for $80 million, no human would be caught dead making calls for Meg Whitman.

Why!? (5, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477192)

How stupid is she?

Honestly, It's not so much about the legality of it. It's the negative publicity. These things are illegal because people find them really really irritating. If you're trying to hawk holidays or something then you probably haven't heard of the company in the first place, so even if you go with someone else they haven't lost anything but for a candidate in an election, a vote for the another party is another vote they have to make up for elsewhere.

Re:Why!? (4, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477274)

Another example of who NOT to vote for. Hello I'm running for office and support using loopholes to get around the intended restrictions our current laws are trying to enforce. Oh and I'm running to be a judge too.

Re:Why!? (2, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477476)

Another example of who NOT to vote for. Hello I'm running for office and support using loopholes to get around the intended restrictions our current laws are trying to enforce. Oh and I'm running to be a judge too.

It's really no surprise.
Finding loopholes to circumvent the intent of the law is practically the definition of a lawyer.
Most judges are former lawyers.

Re:Why!? (3, Funny)

v1 (525388) | more than 4 years ago | (#32478536)

I thought judges were rehabilitated lawyers?

Re:Why!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32477304)

Pretty stupid, that's why I won't vote for her.

Re:Why!? (1)

butlerm (3112) | more than 4 years ago | (#32478512)

She is unethical and a bit of a hypocrite at the very least. Clearly the law needs to be amended to eliminate the loophole, but she is violating the intent of the law in spades. For a judge, that is unconscionable.

Hooray for rationalizations! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32477228)

Kolakowski is an asshole. Therefore it's technically legal that I put a bullet through their brain.

Re:Hooray for rationalizations! (4, Insightful)

meerling (1487879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477290)

So are you saying that if the person who fires the gun in is in a different state than Victoria Kolakowski, it's not illegal?

Re:Hooray for rationalizations! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32477294)

Damn tootin', hombre.

Re:Hooray for rationalizations! (4, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477406)

They'd get you on Interstate commerce laws. You were part of a conspiracy to transport the bullet across state lines.

Re:Hooray for rationalizations! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32477410)

So are you saying that if the person who fires the gun in is in a different state than Victoria Kolakowski, it's not illegal?

Interesting theory... sounds like one of those annoying law school questions. Which state has jurisdiction?

Re:Hooray for rationalizations! (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477450)

So are you saying that if the person who fires the gun in is in a different state than Victoria Kolakowski, it's not illegal?

Only if the bullet passes through yet another state.

I saw it on a documentary on Hulu. Funny this is, it's a cartoon so I think it's a legal thing for kids. [hulu.com]

I thought this was legal for political messages... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32477288)

I never knew this was illegal. My phone has been ringing non-stop for three weeks in the evenings.. And I'm in California.

Re:I thought this was legal for political messages (1)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477498)

I never knew this was illegal. My phone has been ringing non-stop for three weeks in the evenings.. And I'm in California.

Same here--I'm also a Californian and I get a boatload (bot-load?) of robocalls from candidates and advocates on all sides of every issue before each election. I had no idea that they were illegal here.

I'm not defending Kolakwski by any means, I hate robocalls and hang up immediately whenever I get one, but she's not really doing anything that a lot of other people are doing.

I guess (3, Insightful)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477292)

Pfffffttt, Judges are above the law. I hate that!

Re:I guess (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477478)

Pfffffttt, Judges are above the law. I hate that!

If you''re not Judge, Cop, member of Congress, or the President; you're little people. Unless, you're the big shot that's funds their campaigns then you own their ass. So I guess that makes members of my list slightly larger people or something.

Re:I guess (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477852)

Come on! Everyone knows that isn't true.

You forgot the governors, CEOs, religious leaders, military, and people from countries we like (not our own).

Let the Kolakowski campaign know how you feel (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32477312)

If you're not in California, start your robodialers!

Contact: [kolakowskiforjudge.com]

Kolakowski for Judge 2010 (FPPC No. 1324175)

285 Hanover Avenue, #1

Oakland, California 94606-1260

(510) 465-2988

Re:Let the Kolakowski campaign know how you feel (2, Insightful)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477512)

As a revenge fantasy (I'm afraid that I'd get in trouble because I'm not a big shot businessman or politician), I thought of writing a Python script that would use the modem and call and leave a message.

The logic would be:

  1. Wait for dial tone.
  2. Dial.
  3. Wait so many seconds for answering machine
  4. Play wave file. - repeatedly until hang up.
  5. Go to 1.

And just let it run.

Re:Let the Kolakowski campaign know how you feel (1)

sponga (739683) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477606)

I believe we had those things called 'wardialers' back in the AOL kiddie days when progs were coming out left and right to do stupid mischievous behavior , I probably got them sitting on a floppy somewhere deep in a drawer and they probably are still compatible today.

Re:Let the Kolakowski campaign know how you feel (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477832)

Drop the modem and implement it as a Skype plug in...

Keep playing the game bitches (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32477326)

Let your common sense go so that your side of the political game wins. To hell with the actual results once these cheap fucks get into office. Just as long as they have the right little letter after their name, that's all that matters even if they're screwing you.

Elected judges = bad idea (3, Insightful)

OnePumpChump (1560417) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477330)

That's the source of zero tolerance for (not really a problem) and tough on (convenient scapegoat). You also get judges becoming corrupt and unethical in ways that would otherwise only apply to legislators and executives. Like this.

Re:Elected judges = bad idea (1)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477462)

Because our federal court system is a paradigm of integrity and obedience to the rule of law.

Re:Elected judges = bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32477514)

If they are not elected that is worse. They will just get corrupt because they can't get fired.

Re:Elected judges = bad idea (1)

Haeleth (414428) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477718)

That's a false dichotomy. It is perfectly possible to have unelected judges who can still get fired.

You're also making the assumption that being appointed for life inevitably leads to corruption. You provide no evidence to support this. Indeed, there are plenty of counterexamples, such as the Supreme Court, where justices are appointed for life precisely to reduce the risk of corruption -- and it appears to work pretty well.

party hacks (0, Flamebait)

zogger (617870) | more than 4 years ago | (#32478676)

I seriously doubt that you get appointed a judge someplace, supreme or not, without you already being a bought and paid for party shill of one political gang or the other. You aren't even considered for the nomination unless you have been compromised.

In other words, I ain't buying that independent bit. They are bought off or black-mailable, or both. The system is rotten and corrupt, from the top down, from the bottom up, and sideways in every direction. Appointed for life is a nice theory to try and control corruption, I just don't think it works in real life, they get corrupted well before this appointment/nomination/confirmation.

And that is how it "appears" to me after watching politics fairly closely for around 4.5 decades now.

Re:Elected judges = bad idea (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#32478234)

They can get fired, it's called impeachment.

Problem is they can only be fired by the same corporate shills we supposedly DO elect.

Re:Elected judges = bad idea (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477556)

Yes and no.

Elected judges do run into these sorts of problems, because they're elected officials with all the baggage that carries. On the other hand, appointed judges for life are accountable to practically nobody, and in areas that have them tend to be the appointer's law partner (or other associate).

In short, they both suck, and for different reasons. And no one's figured out a good alternative to one of the two methods.

Not really true that... (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477748)

And no one's figured out a good alternative to one of the two methods.

A good alternative was figured out long ago. Genetically engineered and cloned judges.
It's the only way to be sure. [youtube.com]

Re:Not really true that... (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477840)

I'd vote for JFK's clone.

Re:Not really true that... (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 4 years ago | (#32478122)

I'd vote to have Marilyn Monroe cloned.

Re:Not really true that... (1)

meerling (1487879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32478214)

Judge Dredd, he's tough but completely fair and unprejudiced.

Where is the FCC and DOJ on this? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32477358)

Though this is for a State Commission, and subject to Ca. rule of law, wouldn't campaigning across Federal Districts be, a no-no? Much less an ethics violation.

Can we get a lawyer in here?

Re:Where is the FCC and DOJ on this? (0, Redundant)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477454)

Though this is for a State Commission, and subject to Ca. rule of law, wouldn't campaigning across Federal Districts be, a no-no? Much less an ethics violation.

Can we get a lawyer in here?

I think you're stretching...

Easier to just call her an idiot, not vote for her, and move on.

Idiot judge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32477362)

What an idiotic judge. Not counting the stupidity in this type of marketing (people won't vote for people who annoy them), why the hell does she think just cause the calls are routed, that would make them legal.

Spam laws are a perfect example. Most countries do not have them but the US does. Does the fact that spam comes from other countries with no laws make them any less illegal in the US? All that means is that those spammers can be arrested if they ever go on US soil. Oh wait, she's already in her state! Seriously, nevermind getting reelected, she should be tried under the very law her agency help create.

if you ever want to be a politician (2, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477400)

you first need the character attribute of massively blind hypocrisy

this applies to the right, and the left

"do as i say, not as i do" must be your highest credo

then you are a guaranteed success

AZ judicial nominating commissions (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32477430)

Here in AZ, one thing they got right was to appoint judges, which cuts out most of this type of campaigning crap. The list of appointees from which the governor chooses is drawn up by the judicial nominating commission, a bipartisan body that consists of lawyers AND nonlawyers. This allows a consensus to be reached as to who is at least _competent_ enough to be appointed. After 2 years of serving on the bench, judges face a retention election, and every 6 years thereafter they are up for another retention election. Usually, the only time the retention elections receive much public attention is when a judge has gone off the deep end in some respect and faces being dumped by the voters. IANAL, but many law professionals around the country hold the AZ judicial appointment process in very high regard, as it produces quality appointments without most of the partisan garbage present in judicial elections.

Disbar that spamming bitch. (4, Interesting)

jcr (53032) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477438)

We do not need weasels on the bench, or acting as officers of the court in any capacity. This woman is a disgrace to her profession.

-jcr

I'm in California (4, Informative)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477446)

For the last week or two I've frequently received three robocalls a day. I'd say this law's effectiveness is on par with the hands-free laws.

Why annoy those who you want to vote for you? (4, Insightful)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477536)

I am still trying to understand why anyone seems to think that annoying people with robocalls is the way to garner support from those people.

Re:Why annoy those who you want to vote for you? (1)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 4 years ago | (#32478710)

Because. It. Works. .

(unfortunately the use of my Slashdot signature is suspended for this posting; )

Cage match with the DC pants judge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32477558)

May the biggest judicial idiot win.

Wipe em off the fucking ballot already (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32477670)

If they can't even obey the rules of the campaigns, then revoke their right to even run!

Oath breakers SUCK

Republicans fascists!!! (1, Offtopic)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477706)

Wait a second........she's a Democrat. Never mind.

http://california.evoter.com/kolakowski [evoter.com]

Re:Republicans fascists!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32478024)

Well yeah I mean wardialing is like a form of entertainment, and Democrats are all about the entertainment industry, right? :D

Republicans just lube you up with some crude and ask you to bend over :)

P.S. Captcha was 'grunted'... fitting isn't it? :D

Politicians (1)

DrugCheese (266151) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477712)

You can't live with them ... ... what do we do with them?

Elected judged (4, Insightful)

quacking duck (607555) | more than 4 years ago | (#32477740)

Judges and law enforcement officials in Canada aren't elected. They're appointed by our elected officials, and I'm more than happy they're focused on their actual jobs and not wasting months every few years shilling for votes based on overblown high profile cases.

Judges cannot be counted on to do there jobs properly if they're worried a controversial decision which upholds the current laws, but is hugely unpopular with the voting public, will cost them their job.
     

Re:Elected judged (2, Interesting)

sycorob (180615) | more than 4 years ago | (#32478344)

Do you guys not have issues with judges/sheriffs/etc being the buddies of the elected officials? The supposed advantage of having these officials elected is that you can boot them if they're not doing their job.

John "Heckuva job" Brown was appointed by Bush, and that didn't work out great.

Not the only one == Meg Whitman also doing this. (4, Informative)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 4 years ago | (#32478092)

I just got a robocall that was not compliant with the law (incoming caller-id blocked, no human intro, no phone number given) "by" Mitt Romney on behalf of Meg Whitman.

Typical Hypocrat. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32478410)

I don't even have to guess her party affiliation.

And you finally got a woman to call you! (1)

GravitonMan (1145905) | more than 4 years ago | (#32478476)

Now your complaining that you finally got a woman to call you? Everyone here keeps talking about how terrible robocalls are. For most of you/us, its the only female who would leave a message on your answering machine.

Especially if the robocall is a "Phonesex Robocall"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlZQ4XZisSk [youtube.com]

It's not just this judge (1)

laing (303349) | more than 4 years ago | (#32478490)

I live in California and my phone has been ringing with robocalls about 4 times a day for the past 2 weeks. (There's an election on Tuesday.) I've answered a few of them and listened to the messages left by the rest. NONE of them were introduced by a person. Most of the calls had a caller ID originating in California. A few of them were blocked.

The most annoying feature of these political calls is that there is no way to opt out. The DMA/FTC lists are exempted from political calls and these calls do not even give you a way to tell them not to call you again.

bad publicity .. not (1)

gearloos (816828) | more than 4 years ago | (#32478702)

Unfortunatly, the only people who will care about this(or actually understand the implications of putting a person with such blatant disregard for current laws on the bench) are the ./ popluace. Joe citizen actually doesn't give a rats ass about judges and just clicks off names...usually incumbents, at election time. Sad but true. What we really need is a DA with balls enough to go after this and media (we all know media really owns the government right?) that doesn't have any monetary reason for protecting her. Yes, Media chooses who to ruin... grow up if you don't believe that.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...