The Seattle Times in today's front-page article has an extremely silly discussion about Rossi's comment that "the political makeup of the Washington State Supreme Court ... makes it almost impossible to overturn this ruling".
First of all, the State Supreme Court is an inherently political body, made up of nine politicians who are elected (and run for re-election) to serve as a check on the politicians in the other two branches of government. Anybody who believes that the Court rules from some values-free interpretation of the law (assuming that such a thing exists, which it does not) and believes that the Court should not be, and is not, guided by political considerations is living in a different universe from the rest of us.
The Times questions only whether the Court has a partisan bias. But partisan bias is only one kind of political bias. I wouldn't necessarily impute a partisan bias to the present Court, but it does seem to have a statist bias that in many cases favors the executive over the people. I would tend to assume that a statist (regardless of party affiliation) would be inclined to protect the King County Executive and its cherished Elections office from having its work product overturned by disenfranchised citizens.
Think: the CLEAN decision of 1996, which protected the emergency baseball stadium from a referendum; the Hangartner case which gutted the Public Disclosure Act (which was instituted by initiative), the Sane Transit decision which ruled that Sound Transit can do whatever the hell it wants, whether or not it conforms with what the voters originally authorized; and the Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District which undermined I-200. All political decisions overruling direct democracy in favor of the executive branch. This is not a scientific sample and not all of the sitting judges were on the bench for all of these decisions. But Alexander, Bridge, Fairhurst and Owens were in the majority on every single one of these for which they were present. Chambers, C. Johnson and Madsen have mixed records. Only Sanders dissented in all of these cases. J. Johnson is brand new, but presumably libertarian/conservative.
I'd be curious if anybody's done a more exhaustive analysis of the sitting justices' prior rulings on questions of direct democracy versus the executive.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 08, 2005 11:33 AM | Email ThisYou are dead on the mark about the Supreme Court. They are not partisan, but highly political and protective of government's ability to treat the rest of us as they see fit.
They are a government protector first, a body of elected and varying partisan activists second, and a court of law last.
Posted by: Mike on June 8, 2005 11:48 AMThe real problem standing in the way of any decent reform in KC and the state is SIMM’s. Rossi and the Republicans need to pour all of their resources and talents into taking the KC office. The Democrats can clean it up and give it back to the people of King County. We are finally seeing negative criticism reaching all the way to SIMM's office and it is coming from both sides of the isle. With the media now kicking in it is time to strike while the iron is hot (play on words?)
We need Rossi to give everything he has to support David Irons to take the KC office or go for it himself. It would be a natural step to taking the Governors mansion later on and would help lead a take over of the State house and senate in advance. We can start in KC and watch the rest of the state go red in the next three to seven years.
The Supreme Court is the same thing. But I thought it was gutsy that Rossi made that statement.
Posted by: swatter on June 8, 2005 11:59 AMWhile Rossi is probably the elected Governor of this state (as demonstrated prior to adding ballots in KC), Gregoire is our appointed Governor and that is unfortunate. This said, republicans should feel confident going into the next set of elections as well as the 2008 Governor's Race.
Consider what it took for Gregoire to enter the mansion:
1. Many who voted for Murray, Cantwell, and other Democrats did not vote for her
2. She was twice beaten by Rossi, the GOP's 3rd choice and a virtual unknown.
3. Many who voted for her during the election, have stated that in the chance for a revote and/or the 2008 election, would never cast their vote for her again
4. She is the 3rd most unpopular Governor in the country
5. She has no plan, vision, nor inspires any sort of confidence (subjective point of view)
Why she and Legislature will lose power:
1. Her lack of leadership - She has displayed arrogance in going back on tax promises and with the help of the Legislature, has made Locke look like a fiscal conservative
2. The Democratic Legislature's arrogance through the overturning of initiatives, the support of tax hikes, and union pandering
3. The looming cloud of ilegitimacy (that will only be reignited during 2008) and the growing popularity of Rossi
A. Gregoire - whether it fair or not - has
become a symbol of what is wrong and like
Hillary Clinton - is a devicive figure
that will be bring people to the polls
in '08 just to see her defeat
GO ROSSI '08
...Redefeat Gregoire!
Washington Court Watch would make an excellent BLOG.
I have seen some of the most outlandish rulings come from courts. I do not think imbecilic is to strong a word here.
Especially bad are Thurston County courts, Appellate courts and the Supreme Court. Many of the small county courts are good but they feel they are bound by the higher courts - a major fallacy.
Anyone who questions this is invited to look at a case involving a man named “Montana,” from a few years back. That case regards Art. 1Section 24 Washington State Constitution. It was the liberal’s road to total gun control.
Posted by: Ron A. on June 8, 2005 01:02 PMWhat I wonder is this--is there anybody (trolls, Goldstein, etc.) who can actually say they like Gregoire and what she is doing in the office? If anybody can say so, what is the evidence they are using?
Curious minds want to know--it seems that many defenders of Gregoire are using the "at least she's not a GOP member" defense.
Re-re-re-relect R-r-r-r-ossi (the R-r-r-epublican!):)
Stefan, interesting point about the "political" versus "partisan".
As to their bias, "statist" is a good description. I would also say "elitist" - in that they trust themselves and the other elites, but not regular voters.
Posted by: Shannon K on June 8, 2005 01:21 PMI also know one of their dirty secrets. they use the supreme court commissioner to make rulings on cases they want to hide from the public, even though there is no constitutional authority for them to do so.
I filed a petition to recall Gregoire on 5/31/05 alleging numerous crimes and violations of her oath of office. Some of the crimes are obstruction of justice and mail fraud. Her continuing to allow the justices of the state supreme court to obstruct justice through the use of the office of 'court commissioner' is just one.
I met with CJ Alexander in his chambers on August 12, 2002. During this meeting, he admitted that I was entitled to a $1.2 million judgment against Clark County as a matter of law. He also admitted that I was entitled to a hearing on a petition for a writ of mandamus against Skamania County Superior Court Judge E. Thompson Reynolds, who recused himself from the case involved on the day he was served with the petition for a writ of mandamus. I was not given a hearing because if it had been held, the corruption in the Clark County Superior Court would have been exposed.
CJ Alexander also admitted the Cowlitz county Superior Court Judge Stephen Warning committed perjury and obstruction of justice in another matter which involved me. After forcing the Clark County sheriff's office to investigate, the Clark County prosecutor listed the suspect as 'First Name: NONE, Last Name: NONE" even though Judge Warning's name was mention nine times in the report. Even the other party's attorney admitted to the sheriff's office that my allegations were true. CJ Alexander and Gregoire have known this to be the case for years and have done nothing. the reason the prosecutor did not list Judge Warning as the suspect is that if he had, Warning would have been required to go on administrative leave and once that happened. the lid on the corruption in the courts would have blown sky high.
There is much more.
The hearing on the sufficiency of my petition to recall Gregoire will be held in the Thurston County Superior Court aroungd the end of the month. There will surely be an appeal to the state SC, which will be required to hear it within 30 days after the determination by the superior court.
I can assure all the readers here that it will be fascinating is to see just how corrupt our courts are and how much direct evidence I have of the corruption.
Don't think for a second that Gregoire will serve a full term.
However, without the interest of the public and some publicity, it will be much more difficult. I would ask that each of you contact Sam Reed's office and demand that he post the related documents on his web site, just as he has done with the election contest. I may be only one citizen, but I will no tolerate the continued violation of my constitutional rights by Gregoire and the courts of Washington.
Don
Don
The recent case established as a legal fact that there were voterless ballots in the recent election. If it were not for this legal case, that would only be an unsubstantiated rumor.
It's in the public interest to get that fact onto the legal record, is it not?
Posted by: Bostonian on June 8, 2005 01:46 PMA case (City of Seattle v. Montana, 129 Wn.2d 583 (1996)) that says you can charge a drug dealer and a thief for carrying concealed knives in the city of Seattle is a roadmap to gun control? Do you think anti-littering laws are a roadmap to Facisim?
This thread has to be Spin Politics at its best. Lets face it, Rossi was feeding his base red meat, and look how it is being gobbled up. The current Supreme Court is pro-plaintiff first, pro-buisness second. However, if Rossi really felt he had an arguement with the Judges ruling, take it up. The truth is he had no case below, got spanked by the judge, and knew he couldn't get one justice on the Supremes to support him.
Posted by: JDB on June 8, 2005 01:49 PMWhat's your problem with Rossi again?
Posted by: Bostonian on June 8, 2005 01:57 PMWA state law is rigged to protect the state election officials. I don't see any sign that the judiciary of the state is looking out for the citizens.
Posted by: Bostonian on June 8, 2005 02:29 PMThe funny part is that you're talking about a court that has already handled two cases related to this election in a way that epitomizes impartiality. In the first of them, the court ruled NINE TO ZERO for Rossi. In the second, it ruled NINE TO ZERO for Gregoire. You couldn't have a picture of a fairer, more neutral court. In the first decision, the most "liberal" justices sided with Rossi. In the second, the most "conservative" justices sided with Gregoire. I'm from the other side of the aisle from you on lots of things, but I think both the Dem-leaning and Republican-leaning justices deserve all the credit in the world for their courage in calling those cases as they saw them, without regard to how it would help or hurt their preferred candidates.
For Rossi to have ascribed ANY "political" bias to the court was cheap and unseemly. If he wants to "correct" things by saying that he didn't mean to suggest that the court was biased and he was really talking about some super-technical idea like "statist" bias (when's the last time you thought of Dino Rossi concerning himself with "statism"?!), that would be welcome. But even if he does that, anybody looking at this will know that what really happened is that he took a cheap shot, got called on it, and had to backpedal.
Posted by: Bluebeard on June 8, 2005 02:40 PMOregon's all mail ballot system is not "more secure" than ours.
Victoria Taft, a Portland talk show host, reports that...Ruth Bendle, who has tried to validate the integity of the vote in Oregon by going from county to county to justify the number of votes with registered voters, only was allowed to evaluate 3 counties, in which she found 16,000 more votes than registered voters.
We need to stay away from all mail voting and go back to the polls.
Posted by: Susu on June 8, 2005 03:42 PMThe Washington State Republicans have done a terrible job cleaning up their voter database. It's pathetic. The Dems have literally called and screened every registered voter in the State much more effectly. This is Chris Vance's biggest failure. To not get the voter registration database cleaned up AND good data on each voter. I have worked the WSRP lists before. Pathetic.
We need street warriors that will track down each and every registered voter...find out who they support and make sure they are legitimate registered voters. The Dems HAVE done this and are constantly updating lists. How do I know??
Spies.
Also the Dems are good at ignoring illegally registered voters IF THEY ARE ASSURED THEY ARE THEIR GUYS@!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on June 8, 2005 05:46 PMFair enough, where did the nine Justices go to law school, and how does that prove they would not give Rossi a fair hearing (especially, as has been pointed out by Bluebeard, they have before).
As far as I know, only one Justice gave money to the Govenor's campaign, please enlighten us with how the others donated, if they did.
As far as I know, none of the Justices worked in the AGs office while she ran it. I'll take that back, having looked it up, Justice Fairhurst was hired by Eikenberry (R-WA) and continue to work at the AG's office under Gregoire. The only ohter justice to work for the AGs office was Justice Johnson, who worked for the Eikenberry AGs office.
So, basically, you are spouting total nonsense. Which means you should fit in well on this board.
Posted by: JDB on June 9, 2005 02:10 PMThanks, Susu, for your info. I was misinformed.
Posted by: Shannon K on June 9, 2005 07:48 PM