1. awesome

Posted by: Michele on March 5, 2005 04:02 PM

2. What we really need is a specialized report that shows us who the judges are that routinely screw men in Family Court.

Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on March 5, 2005 04:10 PM

3. Nice site thanks.

Posted by: Erik on March 5, 2005 04:15 PM

4. Justice Sanders has been charged on two occasions. What is clear is that Justice Sanders attempts to protect the constitutional rights of all Washington citizens. Prosecutors and others who are part of the corrupt judiciary don't like hime because he doesn't go along silently while the rights of citizens are abused.

The real problem with the CJC is that if they choose to cover up judicial corruption, it is hard to get the word out to the public.

Posted by: Don on March 5, 2005 04:38 PM

5. Prosecutors and others who are part of the corrupt judiciary don't like hime because he doesn't go along silently while the rights of citizens are abused.

State prosecutors are not part of the judiciary. They are elected by each county.

Federal prosecutors serve under the department of justice, formally Ashcroft, a political appointee.

Posted by: Erik on March 5, 2005 04:46 PM

6. Judges and prosecutors are all members of the Washington State Bar assoiciation, which is a private organization. Problem is that the legislation that created the WSBA created it as a government agency. I dare you to find the phone number of the state agency that is the washington bar association.

In other words, the WSBA is a private organization that currently determines who can and cannot practice law in the state of Washington, and they have no legal authority to do so.

Posted by: Don on March 5, 2005 05:39 PM

7. Prosecutors and others who are part of the corrupt judiciary

That doesn't make prosecutors part of the "judiciary."

They are elected officials, at least the leading prosecutor is in each county.

On the state level McKenna is the Washington Attorney General. That doesn't make him part of the judiciary though he is basically a state prosecutor.

Posted by: Erik on March 5, 2005 06:41 PM

8. OK - here is one to keep in mind -- you go to the poll on some off season (like June) election that is hyped up as this big SCHOOL BOND -- GET OUT THE VOTE -- IT IS "FOR THE KIDS" -- and then sure the ballot has the bond issue on it but also 10 to 20 county, city , etc judgeships - almost all -- at least 80 or 90% will be COMPLETELY UNOPPOSED -- this in a state and county -- and city -- that it is a well known fact has more lawyers than the whole country of JAPAN -- unopposed -- what a stinking crock -- oh yeh - and then to top it all off they give ya the "non-partisan" crap and the "rule of laws not men" -- the BIG LIE

Posted by: Bill on March 5, 2005 08:24 PM

9. Yeah, it p-s me off too when I see these judges up for re-election unopposed.

This is why there should be an option on the ballot that says "none of the above." At least then, we would know which judges and other elected officials are not even getting a majority when unopposed.

Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on March 5, 2005 09:04 PM

10. Don you are talking like a conservative welcome to the party man!

Posted by: Adriel on March 5, 2005 11:01 PM

11. Right-on, Adriel. The people picking Don apart need to read a little more charitably. A little punctuation and their criticism falls apart. Thus: Prosecutors, and others who are part of the corrupt judiciary, don't like him because he doesn't go along silently while the rights of citizens are abused. Pretty clear to me he's not saying prosecutors are part of the corrupt judiciary, he's saying there are two groups who dislike this guy- corrupt judges and prosecutors.

For years I've been stymied at the polls, with no idea which judge deserves my vote. I know what I want in a judge: respect for the rule of law. I want a judge who when people talk about the "living" or "evolving" Constitution will, like Clarence Thomas, pull a copy out of their pocket and say, "mine's inanimate." I want a judge who understands the difference between MAKING law (the legislature's job) and adjudicating. Pretty basic stuff, only how do you figure this out without spending half your life wading through reams of each judges written opinions?

This database is a step in the right direction. What we really need though are more sources like Sound Politics to digest and present this information to an electorate starving for knowledge.

Posted by: Chuck Miller on March 6, 2005 11:15 AM

12. Interesting database. Searching the whole history of the database for all counties we find, for Censure and Removal only three judges, two Pierce County, one King County. Hmmm...
For Censure and Suspension- 2 Pierce, 2 Yakima, 1 King.
Censure & Disqualification- 1 Pierce, 1 Jefferson, zero King.
Dismissal- 1 Pierce. Only one judge dismissed statewide since 1982!
Reprimand- 17 judges in many counties, only three King County.

Considering the size of King County we have to ask, is the relative lack of disciplinary actions evidence of exemplary judges, or something else???

Posted by: Chuck Miller on March 6, 2005 11:36 AM

13. It's part of a liberal conspiracy to take over the world. We start with the King County judges, then the Governor's Mansion, then the White House, Senate, and House. Then we'll invade any countries that stand in our way. Sound familiar?

Posted by: Eric on March 6, 2005 11:51 AM

14. Say Chuck -- what you are saying about researching the judges is right on -- a person who isn't brain dead would soon be brain dead or at least hopelessly scrambled - reading all that legal mumbo-jumbo circuitous crap -- but - you missed the real bottom line -- what difference does it make to research the judges when they are running unopposed -- everything is under the table - they do not have to campaign or answer to anybody -- that is what the lefties want -- as far as they were concerned - X-tine, Kerry and ALGore were all running unopposed -- likewise Cantwell in 1976 -- kinda like Osamma mama and Bagdad Jim -- if those two do not exemplify the rotten putrified state of affairs in Washington STATE Politics - nothing does - and all is well with the world

Posted by: Bill on March 6, 2005 12:14 PM

15. You're right, and it's baffling to me how we can have judges running unopposed. Though it does make sense in light of the MSM abuse sure to be heaped on any conservative candidate. But that's the MSM for you. Which is my point, that it's really these alternative choices like Sound Politics that make real change possible.

Look around, it's been changing for some time now. 50 years ago there was only National Review. Then there was Rush on the radio and Drudge- and a zillion others- on the internet. A true grass-roots movement that reinvigorated peoples desire to know more about American government- and by that I mean the original intent of the Founders limited government, not the PC BS of PBS and MSM.

I sure hope to see more competitive races in the future. When (not if, when!) that happens I'll be looking to sources like this one to decide which judge gets my vote. Not because they tell me who to vote for but because finally, at last, they give me the INFORMATION to DECIDE who to vote for.

Brian and Stefan, (et al) THANK YOU!

Posted by: Chuck Miller on March 6, 2005 01:46 PM

16. Great site. The only time I hear about a Judge is on one of the Talk Shows and it usually is when he makes a bad call.

Now if we could only have a site similar to the Library of Congress - Thomas Legislative Information on the Internet site: http://thomas.loc.gov

Perhaps with different categories such as: DWI's, Rapes, Child Abuse, Car Thefts, etc. and by County and Judge. If all the cases each judge handles was on the internet with a brief summary about the sentence imposed (if any), perhaps the Judges wouldn't be so quick to let some of these felons off so easy.
1. Case number
2. Jail/Prison time to be served
3. Restitution Amount
4. Length of Probation
5. All other categories I missed

EXAMPLE:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/search.html -- Bills & Resolutions
"Summary and Status Information about Bills and Resolutions" (1973 to present)
http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d108query.html -- Bill Summary & Status, 108th Congress (2003-2004)
Sponsor/Cosponsor:
Senate: Kerry, John F [D-MA]
#2 - S.300 - A bill to award a congressional gold medal to Jackie Robinson (posthumously), in recognition of his many contributions to the Nation, and to express the sense of Congress that there should be a national day in recognition of Jackie Robinson. - became Public Law 108-100 on 10/29/2003.

Posted by: Janet on March 6, 2005 04:15 PM

17. Are you going to the rally?

http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20050307/topstories/101265.shtml

Pass the word!

Posted by: CR (reformed) Activist on March 7, 2005 10:21 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?