The front page headline of today's Seattle Post-Intelligencer is screaming about a PAC that was recently formed to promote conservative judicial candidates "State PAC to push for right-wing judges":
The development alarms some court observers, who say an agenda-driven PAC for judicial elections could threaten the independence and impartiality of the state's judiciaryThe article fails to mention that Charles Wiggins is a partisan Democrat.
...
"You really hope you don't politicize the judicial branch of government because judges aren't elected to enact an ideological agenda," said Charles Wiggins, a Bainbridge Island lawyer and president of the Washington chapter of the American Judicature Society, which works to maintain courts' independence and integrity.
When the liberal media talks about preserving "judicial independence", they usually mean preserving a judiciary selected by trial lawyers, Indian tribes, government employee unions, and the Democratic Party and blessed by the newspapers.
For all the disingenuous liberal whining about maintainng judicial independence, the reality is that judicial candidates are politicians who solicit money and endorsements and votes in order to win an office which entails interpreting and making value judgments in a political context on laws passed and implemented by other politicians. A judge's philosophy and track record matter. That is why those who currently have disproportionate influence in selecting judges are so intent on discrediting others who choose to exercise their legitimate rights to select judges who they believe to be more sympathetic to their legitimate interests.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 25, 2005 10:22 AM | Email ThisOur friendly judge who ruled against talk radio on I912 raised an astonishing amount of funding from special interests.
Posted by: Andy on November 25, 2005 01:17 PMI remember watching TVW and they showed a union gathering/rally and it was fascinating to hear them talking so openly partisanly about the judges they were supporting $$$$$ and who they WEREN'T. Many of the supreme court candidates were at this meeting and it just showed me how in bed with these liberal groups most of the supreme court was. I say, good for Gorton and his group. It's about time.
Posted by: Misty on November 25, 2005 01:27 PM"The Constitutional Law PAC has a right-of-center orientation."
Nothing headed by Slade Gorton has ever been, or would ever be, right-of-center. The error results from the PI thinking that they are the center (of the universe, most likely), and Slade is a shade to the right of them.
Posted by: TB on November 25, 2005 03:28 PMBut when Republicans want to organize legitimate PACs to elect candidates to elected, not appointed positions, suddenly money in the political process is a bad thing.
And we see it even in the appointed judicial positions. When Democrats were appointing judges under Clinton, the media had nothing to report other than positive endorsements. But when Bush wants to appoint a judge to the Supreme Court, it is met with the utmost of scrutiny, sanctimonious screeds from newspaper editorial boards, etc.
There's a double standard out there for those with a liberal world view. It pervades their thinking on everything. It's OK if it benefits a progressive liberal agenda, and not OK if it does not. Their going to throw their considerable media backing around as much as possible to make sure this is heard loud and clear, and absorbed by their sheep like followers.
why should we have a right-wing judge on the court? be definition a right-winger would try to impose his anti-abortion, pro-religion views on the case rather then interpreting the consitution, just the same as a left-wing judge would impose his idealogy. I don't want IDEALOGICAL judges on the court!
Posted by: doug on November 25, 2005 06:25 PMAll they have room for is "moderate centrists" and "right wingers."
Posted by: Hoplophile on November 25, 2005 08:05 PMIt's about time that the Republicans and the conservatives (not necessarily the same group) had a place to hang their hats when it comes time to elect judges.
Posted by: Clean House on November 25, 2005 08:20 PMYour logic is perverted. So a conservative judge or two on the Supreme Court would be just fine, whether you and your moonbat goofballs think so or not !
Posted by: KS on November 25, 2005 09:22 PMThey (liberal Democrats) know they own this state...They own our elections. They own the media....They own the friggin west coast!
For the PI to run this story is like a red herring....It's only there to direct our emotions. It's there to give conservatives false hope and idiot-liberal puppets another reason to go ballistic....It's just a button pushing piece....
Just something to keep the fires burning on both sides....
Yes....I wish it were a true possibility....but conservatives here can't fix even our most basic problems....How would they get *real* judges in here?
Posted by: Deborah on November 26, 2005 12:56 AMI have tried to vote with more care in the recent elections, knowing that the judges we vote in have a direct influence on our lives.
The left-wing special interest groups have had a monopoly in this area for too long now anyway.
Posted by: jaybo on November 26, 2005 08:15 AMFor all the disingenuous liberal whining about maintainng judicial independence, the reality is that judicial candidates are politicians who solicit money and endorsements and votes in order to win an office which entails interpreting and making value judgments in a political context on laws passed and implemented by other politicians. A judge's philosophy and track record matter.
So Stefan... if you agree that judicial candidates are politicians, then will you join me in supporting legislation that places the same campaign contribution limits on judicial races as currently exist for other political candidates?
I'm sure we can find some common ground between us, if only in the mutally self-serving interest of protect judicial races from undue influence from either the right or the left.
Posted by: Goldy on November 26, 2005 09:06 AMThanks Angry, It is a good thing that someone has the history and the down low on this PAC's leader. You just saved me a hundred bucks, thanks again
Posted by: Shmoe on November 26, 2005 09:06 AMThe BIAW is using tax dollars to wage this partisan fight--yes, yes, "confiscated" from "we the people" (to use your lingo).
Welcome to the real world.
Posted by: bob on November 26, 2005 12:40 PMSeveral of the female judges are the very worst, because they model themselves after the worst possible male examples of partiality. Their prejudiced agenda has little or nothing to do with justice or the law and everything to do with settling personal scores whether real or perceived. If you doubt this, simply watch one of the televised Supreme Court or Court of Appeals hearings. Some of the discussion seems recondite because of the nature of law, but much of it is simple common sense applied.
We all tend to assume that judges become judges because they know something special. Take one look at a drunken, criminal scofflaw like Justice Bobbie Bridge and tell anyone with a straight face that this is a person you want making decisions for you. She knows something special, how to brazen her way beyond charges of drunk driving, hit and run, and criminal flight from justice. Just imagine a conservative male judge trying that trick!
The amusing part is that liberals go on unabashed looking you right in the face as though nothing happened. Liberal shamelessness is par for the course, and liberal Judges are shamelessly contemptuous of the law.
You miss the point. A "right-wing" judge will interpret the constitution where a "left wing" judge will legislate from the bench.
You say, "a right-winger would try to impose his anti-abortion, pro-religion views on the case rather then interpreting the consitution, just the same as a left-wing judge would impose his idealogy."
The constitution says nothing about abortion and right wingers understand it so they would rule against liberal fabrications that support so-called abortion rights that don't exist. The constitution says nothing about separation of church and state and right wingers understand it so they would rule that most of the anti-religious, anti-Christian laws being made by liberal judges under the pretext of constitutionality are not supported by the constitution. It is up to legislators to make laws not judges.
I have yet to hear from any right winger about constitutionally banning abortion, or establishing a national church, and I certainly have never heard of them trying to do so from the bench. In short the right is right and the left is wacked out.
STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION IS A RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY
I want ideology in the Supreme Court; the ideal of strict interpretation of the constitution--a right wing ideology. No one can get hurt or lose rights by this happening. Otherwise everyone loses.
I think that it would only be appropriate for Stefan to consider yor challenge if you would agree that the voter rolls in Washington State are truly in need of a "clean-up" and endorse the current attempts by various groups to do just that.
Posted by: jaybo on November 26, 2005 01:49 PMWhile I agree with the spirit of what you wrote, you made a number of statements that beg for clarification. The first point is about interpreting the constitution. A constitution that needs perpetual interpretation is confused and impossible to maintain. I think the U.S. constitution is clear enough for the most part, and I am uncomfortable at anyone having to "interpret" it. The words are simple, and the words mean what they say. The job of conservative justices is to understand this fact, and to remove the chains of interpretation, and set our constitution free.
Secondly, the U.S. constitution does touch on the subject of separation of church and state. Specifically, the constitution forbids having religious tests for candidates for federal offices. The founders have fresh memories of the troubles caused by having governments establish state religions, and by laws that forbade people belonging to certain religions from holding office. The founders were wise to construct a curtain of separation between the leaders of the church and the leaders of the government.
In no way did the founders hope or plan for government to sanitize the public space from all traces of Christianity. Liberals, even liberals with a Chrstian heritage, if not actual membership in Christian churches, seem to have no love for Christianity. It is really troubling how liberals have been tricked into the anti-Christian camp.
As for ideology on the court, it would be nice if the only ideology of American justices was a commitment to the American constitution. But a large majority of American justices seem committed to anti-American thinking. It is a necessary evil that anti-American justices be counter-balanced by pro-American justices for some while. Perhaps balance will be restored and some future executive and congress and again offer up non-ideological candidates who are confirmed or denied on non-ideological grounds. For now, conservative justices sound great!
Posted by: huckleberry on November 26, 2005 03:19 PMI appreciate your thoughtful comments.
In clarification, while Article VI Sec 3. states, “no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office of public trust under the United States,” this is by no means dispositive to all of us. I am in a distinct minority of opinion, but that hardly means I'm wrong.
Article VI Sec 3. does not comprise a separation of church and state, but a prohibition of religious testing as a requirement for public office. The two are quite different things and the distinction is clear enough to conclude that if the framers had meant to separate religion from the state (or build a wall between them) it would have done just that. Numerous definitive inferences support religious inclusion as a basis of our laws including the interchangeability of oath or affirmation, the inclusion of religious language in the constitution itself, and the provision of chaplains that still serve us today.
Article I, Sec3, Par 6, and Art II, Sec I, Par 8, evidence both the founders concern for religious freedom and it’s inclusion into public affairs. Whenever the Constitution calls for an oath to god to tell the truth or perform responsibilities, an alternative affirmation is provided for those who have convictions against the swearing of such oaths. You notice they did not separate the oath “to God” from these provisions but simply provided an alternative to it.
If the founders and subsequent amenders had not seen fit for an admixture of religion into the constitution they would not have included into the text of the preamble such phrases as “the laws of nature and of nature’s god” . . . “endowed by their creator” . . . . They would not have used the words “make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” rather simply stating that “the state is a secular body and religion shall remain separate from the state in all respects,” or some similar language. They didn’t do this and I don’t wonder why. The bedrock of our freedoms, and the difference between our Republican government and others around the world lay in the fundamental rights granted to us by God. Without that, and without the recognition of that fact, we are easy prey to anyone who wants to create “rights,” or pi$$ them away willy-nilly as they like.
As it is, those who wish to grind away the Judao-Christian religious foundation of our country call the “establishment clause," the “separation clause" as if they are one and the same.
“That was not the historical meaning of the First Amendment. The first Congress, which proposed the First Amendment for ratification by the states, also appointed chaplains for the House, Senate and the Armed Forces. The early Congresses regularly petitioned the President to issue Thanksgiving Day proclamations addressed to God. The framers and ratifiers could not conceivably have anticipated that the Supreme Court, sitting in a courtroom with a painting of Moses and the Ten Commandments, would hold it an unconstitutional establishment of religion for a high school to have a copy of the Ten Commandments on a wall.See Slouching Towards Gomorrah, By Robert H. Bork.
If the founders had meant there to be a separation of church or religion and state they would have made it clear that this was what they intended. They did not, but liberal justices did.
True conservatives like Justices Scalia and Thomas understand this as the ideology of constitutional consistency and freedom. I hope Roberts and Alito do as well.
Thanks for your comments.
Good anecdote. I use a P.O. Box and I experienced a variation of before and after voting problems similar to what you describe happened with your freinds, and I wasn't pi$$ed at Vance, Sotelo, or the Republican Party. I was pi$$ed at the real cause of the real problems--King County Elections who refused to resolve them.
Your Republican freinds surprise me in that they relied on anything the PI prints. If they were pi$$ed at the R's, it was simply their own fault. Chris Vance explained the situation as best he could, but he can explain whatever until he is blue in the face; as he doesn't own the MSM like the rats do, no one will hear him speak the truth. I am not a Vance fan, but he can't fix a public relations problem caused by the liberally dominated media, using the liberally dominated media.
I have no patience for Republican ignorance of the obvious realities about the regional strangle-hold Democrats have on the public discourse. It plays right into their stinking corrupt hands with no positive outcome. We all know better than to buy into the 500 pound liberal Democrat canard that the Republicans tried to scuttle legitimate voters'.
While I agree that "the R's NEED to explain even better than Chris Vance has tried to WHY they waited until 3 days before the election." and they have done so, still it seems obvious that without the good fortune of having you around to explain it, people like your friends will never know about let alone understand the truth.
Thanks.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on November 27, 2005 10:42 AMI should have said, "I was pi$$ed at the real cause of the real problems--King County Elections who refused to resolve them," and the MSM (including the PI) who blew the situation completely out of proportion--substituting facts for sensationalism.
I am not naive, I understand that this is how media works, but Republicans in order to have any confidence in their party have ALWAYS been required to look well beyond the MSM. This situation is far from unique in that respect.
Further, I am convinced that more than anything else, this shallow lazy approach to information gathering and decision making is what caused I-912 to lose. It is so easy to be lulled into a belief that liberal media is in any way reliable, especially when our government uses our $$ to repeat their lies over and over and over again.
Liberals drink whatever tiolet bilge their leaders draw for them, but Republicans cannot afford the dubious luxury of such simplemindedness. No matter how many lies liberals tell, Republicans must think clearly and resist being stuck with liberal stupidity. Otherwise without knowing it, they have become one of them.
I appreciate your views and comments.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on November 27, 2005 12:23 PMWe cross posted. Thanks for the clarification.
I agree with you that the Republican party needs to, lay out a clear timetable of public records requests and how this all came about as it did....including quotes from Logan.
Maybe they will after reading your post. I know they monitor this site closely.
Thanks again.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on November 27, 2005 12:28 PM