This reminds me how one of the most insane things in the world, it seems to me, are democratically elected judges and prosecutors. While handing down judgments and deciding whether to prosecute a marginal case, they have to ask themselves: what will win me reelection in n years.

Federal judges in the U.S. (like this one) are not elected. They’re appointed for life by the president.

Which presidential administration appointed this corrupt judge?

This makes no sense. You mean the evil businesses owners, dressed in all black, sneak into her backdoor in the middle of the night carrying burlap sacks embroidered with the money emblem on them? You can't presume to know what anyone thinks.

I can kick you in the balls, and presume to know what you think.

I think you are really confused about theory and reality.

But if I give you a good faith excuse, often time we prescibe evil motives to more mundane human heuristics like "All my friends tell me great things about small business owners and as such, we should try to protect their ability to hire people".

See, some of us know how to properly understand the banality of evil.

Federal judges aren’t really “funded” by anyone. They aren’t politicians and don’t run for election. Sure it’s possible some are corrupt and being bribed but it’s a stretch to automatically assume that’s the case because one makes a ruling you disagree with.

Surely you don't believe that? After Clarence Thomas and his lifelong friendship with Harlan Crow - it must be a whole lot cheaper and easier to buy off less important federal judges.

For real, all it too was a Provost.

once is happenstance, twice is coincidence...

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Brown_(judge)

Brown is a member of ... the Federalist Society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society

Okay? I'm not surprised that a conservative judge is part of a conservative ideological legal organization. That doesn't mean the same thing as saying they're a politician who is funded by someone.

> Okay? I'm not surprised that a conservative judge is part of a conservative ideological legal organization. That doesn't mean the same thing as saying they're a politician who is funded by someone.

Doesn't it make it looks like he is a ideologue supported by ideological organisation that happens to be a judge and uses this occupation to further his ideology instead of basing judgements on law?

And that organisation conspire to promote judges that are ideologues first?

"She" refers to the person who furnished the quote in the comment I replied to. She is not a judge, she is a lobbyist.

Ah, okay, I guess I was confused.