[Jeff Higgins]

Here in Washington, the rulings and sentencing records of the judges we elect are not made available to the voting public. I gather it is the same in California and probably elswhere as well. These judges appear to feel that they must remain above the will of the people, that they must not allow popular opinion to drive their rulings from the bench. That they provide us with the purest interpretation of law, insulated as they are from public opinion. Maybe that needs to change.

The mere fact that we vote for them implies that we have the information necessary to make an informed decision. We do not, and they do not want us to have that information. Hopefully this officer is able to root out these judges and make their names public. Hopefully the people of San Fransisco give a *****. Sadly, though, I kind of doubt it.

So wouldn't "Released Felon Kills Officer" make for an attention-grabbing headline? Along with pictures of the judges that released him time after time? That should scratch the media's itch for sensationalism. It should satify the mouth-breathing public's yen for scandle and blood. Why would the media choose to ignore this? Through their choices of which "news" to report, we all know they very much influence public opinion. Why would they be so callous as to essentially go after the cop and leave the criminal alone? What is going on here?