Forum and Classifieds

My Ballard Forum » Open Forum

Judicial Elections

(60 posts)

Started 6 months ago by Cate
Latest reply from Cheese

Cate

online
Member

Sitting here with my tea, cats and ballots. I take my ballot pretty seriously but I swear the judicial races make me feel like a brainless nitwit. Does anybody feel like they know who/what they are voting for in these races?

Posted 6 months ago #
great idea

offline
Member

I thought the same thing Cate.

also, for half of them there's only one choice.
what's the point?

Posted 6 months ago #
GAM

offline
Member

My advice: watch out for Richard Sanders, who's trying to get back on after being voted off the bench. A bit of a scary hypocrite that one!

As for only one choice in a lot of races? That's a very sad comment on the value our society puta on these very important positions!

Edited to add: I have an attorney friend I always take out to dinner in election season to get the dish on these races.

Posted 6 months ago #
pennygirl

offline
Member

GAM...

Wouldn't that be the worst person you could talk to?!!

Posted 6 months ago #
onederfullone

offline
Member

+1

Posted 6 months ago #
treehugger

offline
Member

Just another stupid comment from PG and her basement friend.

Posted 6 months ago #
GAM

offline
Member

My friend is a defense attorney fighting for the little guy, not an evil corporate lawyer. They're not all greedy bastards, after all.

But you needn't take my (or my friend's) word for it. You can find Sander's outrages in the press.

Posted 6 months ago #
pennygirl

offline
Member

Hey treehugger...

I don't know what your deal is. It was a joke about attorneys. Why don't you take your stupid comment and facebook off.

Is that stupid enough for you?

Posted 6 months ago #
GAM

offline
Member

Good. That's how I was taking it.

Posted 6 months ago #
Ernie

offline
Member

Treehugger's just making a joke about you and your basement friend, why the hostility?

Posted 6 months ago #
pennygirl

offline
Member

What are you on about now Ernie? Trying to be clever again?

Oh silly me. Of course you are.

Posted 6 months ago #
Cate

online
Member

So do you think we'll all be less cranky after the elections?

Posted 6 months ago #
onederfullone

offline
Member

I would hope I'm not more cranky than usual...

Posted 6 months ago #
pennygirl

offline
Member

Well, let's see. 1der will still be berated, I will be guilty by association and Ernie will still be an ass who tries too hard. That just about covers it don't you think?!

Posted 6 months ago #
lakreitz

offline
Member

Whoa, do I have to pull the car over here, or what. Let's get back on track to Cate's question. The judicial elections are very important, even to basement dwellers.

Unlike GAM, I did NOT talk to any lawyer friends however I also think Richard Saunders is bad news. He lost the endorsement of the Seattle Times in the last (2010 I think) election after some outrageous statements. You may not think much of the Times, but sheesh, you've got to be awful to lose an endorsement so close to the election. He's back, counting on name recognition to get him back in office. More important - McCloud is very qualified.

Posted 6 months ago #
GAM

offline
Member

I hope so. My worry is the votes will be so close that people will feel resentful rather than working to move forward.

I'm sick of the tribalism. We're strangling this country as everyone beats their chests about not compromising their principles. (Lordy, that's a mixed metaphor. Must be my Scotch typing...)

Anyway, I hope folks can build on whatever we end up with on Wednesday.

Posted 6 months ago #
lakreitz

offline
Member

GAM - watch out for the PUI....

Posted 6 months ago #
GAM

offline
Member

Indeed. I had to slip two after the fact grammar/spelling edits into that last post.

Posted 6 months ago #
pennygirl

offline
Member

No. Gam is right. The tribalism is getting out of hand. On Wednesday it might be even worse than it is now, both locally and nationally. But at some point everyone is going to have to step back and concede. Or at least admit that the other person won.

Posted 6 months ago #
Cate

online
Member

lakereitz, Like you I really feel the judicial elections, from Supreme Court down to District Court, are important. But other than the Supreme Court race it is terribly difficult to find information about the candidates. And like great idea said, so many are unopposed. Frustrating cause our Judiciary has a major impact on society.

Posted 6 months ago #
Mondoman

offline
Member

It's worth listening to what Sanders actually said, rather than reading excerpts of what his opponents say he said. As for the "qualified" ratings, those are by a panel of other lawyers, so are quite narrow in scope. I figure the Supreme Court has plenty of "qualified" lawyers on it already, and what's needed is someone who isn't a sheep to ensure that all aspects of cases are considered. (similarly, the US Supreme Court was imho better off with Sandra Day O'Conner, as she had "real-world" experience in the executive and legislative branches of Arizona's government, rather than just the judicial branch).

Sanders had a good record on defendant's rights and property rights; I would think he would continue in that tradition if elected this time.

Posted 6 months ago #
GAM

offline
Member

I'd love to hear the context on his statements about gays. It should be fun to watch him squirm.

Seriously, if you have any context to add, please don't keep it to yourself. It's too late for me, though. I've already voted.

Posted 6 months ago #
lakreitz

offline
Member

Mondo
My opposition Sanders pre-dates the comments which were seen as racist by many and lost him critical endorsements. I don’t agree with most of his political views which he freely shares. I do not trust him to rule impartially. As a vocal property right advocate, he ruled with a major financial backer, the Building Industry Association of Washington in 25 of 28 cases where the BIAC filed amicus briefs. He has appeared at a right to life rally. He voted to uphold Washington’s Defense of Marriage Act. I am pro-choice and voted to support Ref 74. I don’t agree with his politics and I think his politics influence his decisions.

Posted 6 months ago #
boatgeek

offline
Member

On Sanders, I'm not sure how much more context you need. The opinion he wrote said that two of the reasons to deny gay people the right to marry was that they had too many partners and that they couldn't naturally procreate (paraphrasing a bit here). At the time, he had three girlfriends all at once, presumably all on birth control of some sort. What other evidence do you need that he's a hypocrite?

Parisien gave me the creeps because she was (according to some press reports) claiming endorsements that she didn't really have. Other than that, I got nothing.

Posted 6 months ago #
Lou98107

offline
Member

Yeah, trying to make choices based on the judicial information provided was frustrating.

I know three attorneys pretty well, athough only one has current working knowledge of local candidates. I wouldn't hesitate to ask his opinion if I were on the fence, as I respect his opinions and agree with his beliefs. I've done it in the past, and he gives me objective and thorough answers. And I'd certainly listen to the other two, as I know them to be smart, good hearted people. And good for GAM that he takes his friend out to dinner in exchange for information, I'll do that next time I'm seeking political advice.

Well, let's see. 1der will still be berated, I will be guilty by association and Ernie will still be an ass who tries too hard. That just about covers it don't you think?!

I must disagree. Ernie isn't an ass who tries too hard.

Posted 6 months ago #
great idea

offline
Member

off-topic, but I really like your avatars lakreitz!

I struggled to deduce what the last one was--couldn't tell if they were pastries cooling on a rack or some white meat (chicken?) on the grill.

the baby loaf on the trivet is a nice touch.

also, I think Ernie needs to try harder.

Posted 6 months ago #
onederfullone

offline
Member

Presenting Romney to look like he's got downs-syndrome is unforgivable, even for an ass-wipe like you.

Granted, you probably ripped it from some lefty craphole web-site, but still, it makes you look a lot smaller than any other idiot I've seen in a very long time.

I'm not the least bit surprised.

You ought to be facebooked, ass-wipe.

Posted 6 months ago #
BuffaloHawk

offline
Member

Making popcorn ;)

Posted 6 months ago #
great idea

offline
Member

oh, is that what it looks like?

I just googled "funny Romney pictures" and this one came up second.

I think they just shrunk his face which is pretty funny.

to think that it pokes fun at disabled people is despicable though.

Posted 6 months ago #
BuffaloHawk

offline
Member

I thought it was Ted Kennedy .. FWIW

Posted 6 months ago #
great idea

offline
Member

btw oneder, I hope you're kicking Rudy a buck or so everytime you use his patented 'facebookin' phrase.

he deserves those royalties and you know it.

Posted 6 months ago #
Mondoman

offline
Member

boatgeek, you're wrong on Sanders and DOMA (this is a good example of why I encourage looking at the actual words/documents rather than taking other people's writings as fact).
First, he didn't write an opinion, he concurred in James Johnson's opinion. Second, that opinion said you can't declare DOMA unconstitutional because the definition of state-recognized marriage is something for the legislature to decide, not the courts. (Doesn't seem unreasonable to me) The reasoning you didn't like was presumably in the opinion written by Barbara Madsen and signed by Gerry Alexander and Charles Johnson.

Here's the link to the opinion that Sanders concurred with: http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341co2.pdf

Posted 6 months ago #
Mondoman

offline
Member

lak, I'd be interested in knowing why some people thought his comments were racist (they were certainly not agreeing 100% with the activists he was talking to, but that's a different thing in a society based on reason).
I think you're right about his general support for individual and property rights, but for me that's a good balance versus the rest of the court. As far as abortion goes, it's pretty much a non-issue in WA state, as there's no way the state law will be changing.

Posted 6 months ago #
onederfullone

offline
Member

I know why some would call Sanders racist.

It's because his conviction rate is too high for Seattle.

Posted 6 months ago #
onederfullone

offline
Member

"I just googled "funny Romney pictures" and this one came up second."

Lets break this pile of crap down.

"I just googled"

Okay, I googled about 50 times so far today, maybe I'm not impressed.

"funny Romney pictures"

Okay, maybe I think it's a really stupid thing to google, but google lets idiots do what idiots do.

"and this one came up second."

...and it magicaly became your fucking avatar?

If you had any balls, ever, now is the fucking time.

You really are a sniveling little pile of crap.

Report me again.

Posted 6 months ago #
great idea

offline
Member

I don't report monkeys.

I just train them.

Posted 6 months ago #
pennygirl

offline
Member

"to think that it pokes fun at disabled people is despicable though."

I'm no fan of Romney but that avatar is just as cruel as some of the Obama avatars that are currently popular. If you find it despicable why don't you change it?

Posted 6 months ago #
BuffaloHawk

offline
Member

I am starting to think the avatar looks a lot like Jay Leno.. What is he running for ?

Posted 6 months ago #
great idea

offline
Member

I don't find it despicable. that it somehow mocked disabled people was what I found dispicable.

I thought the pictures with Obama's ears exaggerated were funny, too.

edit: Leno is all chin--good call buff.

Posted 6 months ago #
pennygirl

offline
Member

So if you think that it somehow mocks disabled people why do you still have it? There's a difference between Downs and jug ears. Come on...

Posted 6 months ago #
eric

offline
Member

why are you always picking on GI, Penny?

(kidding)

Posted 6 months ago #
great idea

offline
Member

when I think of down syndrome (and I have a few friends with children who suffer this), I visualize the almond-shaped eyes and flat nose. maybe a tongue extended.

I don't think this picture characterizes that at all. it was just a cheap shot oneder was trying to take. he could've said I was mocking a midget for all I care.

it's painfully obvious that this is Romney's face reduced on his head and nothing more.

if you'd like, I can photoshop a big block of cheese in there to make it truly offensive.

Posted 6 months ago #
great idea

offline
Member

it will be gone tomorrow.

as will the inspiration for it all.

Posted 6 months ago #
pennygirl

offline
Member

Fine then. Now it doesn't mock disabled people! Carry on!

Posted 6 months ago #
BuffaloHawk

offline
Member

I think PG is just being nice to oneder so she can go grab the laundry from the basement safely :)

Posted 6 months ago #
pennygirl

offline
Member

Exactly BH!

Great Idea's avatar is apparently from the 'Little Mitt Face' series so it wasn't intentionally poking fun at disabled people. See what I did there?

Posted 6 months ago #
onederfullone

offline
Member

"and I have a few friends with children who suffer this"

Absolute BS. On both counts.

Glad you can just wipe your avatar away tomorrow, must make all of your friends happy it's so easy for you to just move along. Maybe they'll all forget your footprint soon.

Posted 6 months ago #
lakreitz

offline
Member

Thanks GI. Your guess about the last avatar was close - they were madeleines cooling on the rack. Yum, lots of butter.

Posted 6 months ago #
lakreitz

offline
Member

Mondo
Not sure I would characterize the audience to whom Sanders and fellow justice Johnson spoke to as activists. Per the Seattle Times, it was an Oct 7, 2010 meeting with staff from the Administrative Office of the Courts, a Kitsap County District Court judge and a social-justice advocate from the Seattle University School of Law. They were presenting a report on improving the effectiveness of boards and commissions set up by the Supreme Court to ensure fair treatment for minorities. At the meeting Sanders said certain minority groups are “disproportionally represented in prison because they have a crime problem.” Sanders was given the opportunity to clarify or repudiate his comments but he stuck by them. I was not a supporter of Sanders before this incident, so this did not change my mind about him.

You don’t think Washington state would enact laws to restrict a woman’s right to choose, but I respectfully disagree. Times and opinions change and laws are changed as a result. A hundred years ago, women couldn’t vote. Sixty years ago, interracial marriage was prohibited by law in a majority of states. Every year, laws are introduced in various states to limit or restrict in some way the right to choose. I’m not taking anything for granted, so keeping a pro-choice judge off the bench is high on my list when deciding who to support.

Posted 6 months ago #
BuffaloHawk

offline
Member

GI you've been condemn to the h e double hockey sticks... meet you there! ;)

I'm stuck with a 5lbs block of cheese in my mouth, and you have to wear the Macy's Day parade balloon face for eternity. FOL's!

Posted 6 months ago #
pennygirl

offline
Member

Oh! The block of cheese! See - I'd forgotten about that one! You horrible horrible person :-)

Posted 6 months ago #
BuffaloHawk

offline
Member

If only GI threw in some cables and some short people holding down the head ;)

Posted 6 months ago #
pennygirl

offline
Member

Now you are in trouble for sure :-)

Posted 6 months ago #
Mondoman

offline
Member

lak, sorry, I should have said "activist" (singular, as that's the person who asked him the question). I believe she asked him something to the effect of whether he agreed that the over-representation of blacks in prison was solely due to racism, and he replied to that question.
Also, I think you may have mixed up "pro-choice" and "pro-life" in your comment.

Posted 6 months ago #
lakreitz

offline
Member

Mondo +1. It was a mind boggling day at work yesterday.......

Posted 6 months ago #
boatgeek

offline
Member

Mondo, your contention is that Johnson wrote the opinion, and Sanders merely concurred with it. Does that mean that he didn't agree with what the opinion said? He certainly could have signed on to another opinion or written his own if he disagreed.

Oh, and those things that you said the opinion didn't say?

The unique and binary biological nature of marriage and its exclusive link with procreation and responsible child rearing...
(page 1)

Direct comparisons between opposite-sex homes and same-sex homes further support the former as a better environment for children. For example, studies show an average shorter term commitment and more sexual partners for same-sex couples.
(page 40)

Yeah, it did. And Sanders concurred with the opinion.

To summarize the opinion, people should only get married because they want to have children. People who have children out of wedlock or childless marriages go against our biological nature. Oh, and homosexuals already had the right to get married already, just not to someone of the gender of their choice. And that DOMA can't be struck down on equal protection laws because it didn't create the right to marriage, it just reserved it for heterosexuals.

To your point that the courts can't step in a redefine people's rights, the opinion reads:

The lower courts, and the dissenters, cannot create a new fundamental right to same-sex “marriage” without assuming in the courts the power to redefine marriage and presumably any other right of our citizens under the United States and Washington Constitutions. This court does not possess that power—no court does.

Courts absolutely have the power to redefine rights and privileges. See for example Brown v. Board of Education, which created a right to equal access to schools. It's a question of whether they choose to use it. In this case, a majority of the justices (Sanders certainly isn't alone here) chose to do judicial backflips to protect a law that belongs in the dustbin of history. Maybe that wasn't obvious at the time, but Sanders has certainly made no effort to back away from the ruling in the eight years since.

Posted 6 months ago #
Mondoman

offline
Member

Nope, in pointing out that Sanders signed on to someone else's opinion, I just meant that your posts tend to gloss over the details and end up with smaller or larger misinterpretations as a result.

Again, bg, you need to quote the whole sentences for proper understanding.
Your page 1 quote is from a sentence in the introduction describing what the situation has been in past law: "The unique and binary biological nature of marriage and its exclusive link with procreation and responsible child rearing has defined the institution at common law and in statutory codes and express constitutional provisions of many states." I think everyone, whether they are for or against government recognition of same-sex marriage, can agree with a description of what's happened in the past.

Your p40 quote describes evidence presented in the legislature/lower court cases leading up to this case. Later, on p41, the opinion says "We recognize that competing
interpretations of the studies have been offered to this court." By your logic, that would mean the opinion's author simultaneously believes incompatible interpretations of the same studies. Actually, this was again just more background info, not relevant to the opinion's key argument as described in my previous post and below.

Not sure where you get your "summary" of the opinion (perhaps you're confusing it with the other opinion by Justice Madsen?); as I pointed out above, this opinion says the court does not posses the power to ***redefine*** marriage (that's the text in your last blockquote).

You argue that courts do have such a right, but provide an example lacking any such redefinition. In your example, "education" was not redefined. "Segregation" was not redefined. "Equal access" was not redefined. All that Johnson's opinion says is that if you want to redefine a term that's been in common use with a single clear definition for centuries, both in the general culture, common law, and legislation, then you've got to do it via the legislature (or citizen initiative). For example, courts can't redefine automobiles as bicycles in order to allow them legal access to the B-G trail, but the legislature can.

Bottom line of the opinion: government-recognized same-sex marriage may or may not be a good idea, but that's for the legislature/people to decide, not the courts. That makes a lot of sense to me, and that's why I'm glad the legislature passed the law this session and that we'll get a chance to vote on it. I think that having Ref 74 win will also help speed acceptance of same-sex marriage, without people being able to complain about imposition by activist judges.

Posted 6 months ago #
boatgeek

offline
Member

OK, let's take this apart. I blew it in saying that Sanders wrote the opinion. Johnson wrote it and Sanders concurred. What I don't see is how that leads to a misinterpretation of the issues. Does that in any way mean that he doesn't/didn't agree with what the opinion said? If you sign that you concur with a document, can you later expect that anyone will believe that you didn't generally agree with the whole thing? If that was the case, Sanders could have written a separate opinion that said something like "I agree with most of what Justice Johnson said, except for these points:"

On the issue of competing studies, it does say that there are competing studies. However, the opinion offered spends a couple of extensively footnoted pages outlining the arguments presented by several studies, then goes on to say in a single sentence to say that there are some competing interpretations of the studies without noting the specific interpretations or even who made them. I don't think that's a long leap to say that the author(s) of the opinion dismissed the competing arguments out of hand. They didn't even say what the arguments were, let alone rebut them.

The courts took the power to interpret, change, and throw out laws a long time ago. A great example of this is corporate personhood. What's a person? For an awfully long time, it was a living breathing human being. Starting in 1819, the Supreme Court started down the road that corporations were persons in the sense that they had the same rights as human beings in some cases. That decision culminated in the Citizens United decision that said that corporations have the same free speech rights as people. If a court can redefine what a person is, how can they not redefine what a marriage between people is?

As far as Brown v. Board of Education, the Court decided how equal protection was defined. Previous court decisions had decided that equality could be achieved through "separate but equal." That decision said that this was inherently unequal, and therefore unconstitutional. It redefined what "equal protection" meant.

In any case, I think reasonable people can disagree on the legal basis of marriage equality, since there are also several states where courts decided that they could "redefine" marriage. One hopes that with the drubbing anti-equality people took this election, attitudes and court decisions will go in a positive direction for a while.

Posted 6 months ago #
Mondoman

offline
Member

Yep, was nice to see the 3 different states' initiatives pass this election.

Posted 6 months ago #
Cheese

offline
Member

The slippery slope has started slippin'. With "Citizens United" and the gay marriage initiatives the next step down the slippery slope is Adam Inc. marrying Steve Inc.

Posted 6 months ago #