Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Friday, July 20, 2012

Former Justice Richard B. Sanders Wants His Government Job Back

Posted by on Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Former Justice Richard B. Sanders, far right.
  • E.S.
  • Former Justice Richard B. Sanders, far right. (And from left to Sanders: Bruce Hilyer, Susan Owens, John Ladenburg, the KBCA's moderator at today's forum, Steve Gonzalez, and Sheryl McCloud.)

Maybe it was something we wrote, but former Washington State Supreme Court Justice (and current supreme court candidate!) Richard B. Sanders declined to sit for an interview with the Stranger Election Control Board this year.

So this afternoon I headed downtown to hear Sanders talk at a candidate forum sponsored by the King County Bar Association. As I've said, Sanders can be a little bit of a charmer. Though he was recently endorsed by small government conservative Ron Paul, for example, candidate Sanders joked about how he was running, in part, because "I'd love to get my government job back."

The controversies over his allegedly racist comments and 2006 vote against gay marriage didn't come up, but Citizens United did. Sanders, alone among the people running for Supreme Court Position 9 this year, seemed pleased with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the case.

“We don’t have a right to shut anybody up," he said. "We don’t have a right to shut a corporation up.”

In Sanders's view, this doesn't end up granting corporations extra influence in elections. Rich people like George Soros, Sheldon Adelson, and the Koch brothers have contributed huge sums, Sanders noted, trying to prove that because certain very wealthy people have as much money at their disposal as corporations, the playing field is basically level.

“They are not corporations, they’re individuals," Sanders said of Soros, Adelson, and the Kochs. "They have a freedom of speech under the Constitution. And if we don’t like what they say, our remedy is to say something of our own.”

Okay. Still on his best behavior, Sanders offered his take on himself and the others in his race:

“We’re running for an open seat because Justice Chambers is retiring at the end fo the year," Sanders said. "Justice Chambers has endorsed me. I’m the only one with prior appellate court experience. I also have a record on the court that I’m very proud of… I was always up to the job and I had an independent point of view and frame of mind. Thank you very much.”

 

Comments (6) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
gloomy gus 1
That guy you describe in the caption as "KCBA's moderator" is bar assocation president Richard Mitchell, who tried to knock Jane Hague off the county council last year, about whom the Stranger Elections Control Board wrote, "honestly, we wanted to endorse Richard Mitchell for everything." http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
Posted by gloomy gus on July 20, 2012 at 5:16 PM
Original Andrew 2
Former Justice Richard B. Sanders, far right.

Ha!
Posted by Original Andrew on July 20, 2012 at 5:16 PM
Original Andrew 3
Yeah sure, Dick.

Any one of us can spend a billion dollars supporting the candidate of our choice, just like a corporation can.
Posted by Original Andrew on July 20, 2012 at 5:18 PM
4
Sanders is right. Citizens United leveled the playing field, so that rich and poor alike can spend millions to buy an election.
Posted by Toe Tag on July 20, 2012 at 5:48 PM
5
As I recall - and I'm too tired to check - Citizens United is mostly about corporate spending, although that wasn't the issue before the court. Rich folks could already spend as much as they liked (think the 2004 Swiftboating); before Citizens United those rich folks had to jump through some farcical hoops to deny their obvious motives and actions, but this didn't really slow them down much. Yes, Citizens United removed those roadblocks, but it's not like they were effective in any case.

And rich folks shouldn't have such outsize voices. Whether the answer is limits on spending (and I really don't see how those are easily made compatible with the first amendment) or the liberal provision of opportunities to drown out or at least compete with rich folks through publicly funded campaigns and free media (the former of which the current Supreme Court has despicably and probably successfully tried to crush; the latter of which just isn't happening, especially in terms of mandates and legislation), something needs to stop insanely rich fuckwads like the Koch brothers from parleying their inherited wealth into building the post-apocalyptic dystopian landscape of their masturbatory fantasies.

The question of corporate money is somewhat separate, and rather scary. If you think it's bad for the Koch brothers to use their own money to fuck us all over, just imagine the landscape once every CEO with delusions of grandeur (but I repeat myself) gets to use functionally unlimited amounts of other peoples' money - the shareholders' money, not to mention the workers' and the customers' money - to do the same.
Posted by Warren Terra on July 20, 2012 at 7:07 PM
6
if corporations are not legal persons, then you could not sue a corporation. the real issue is the buckley ruling money is speech, that should be overturned because money is not speech and money is property and it corrupts. no one ever said a love of speech is at the root of all evil. we need regulations on both corporate and human campaign donations/corruptions, just like we limit time place manner and volume of speech, or debate.
Posted by overturn buckely v valeo on July 21, 2012 at 8:48 AM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy