...is the the title of Bruce Ramsey's column in the Seattle Times today, on two Washington Supreme Court candidates who deserve your support. Ramsey writes:
Two challengers, State Sen. Stephen Johnson, R-Kent, and Bellevue attorney John Groen, have announced for the Washington Supreme Court. Johnson is challenging Justice Susan Owens and Groen is challenging Chief Justice Gerry Alexander. The challengers distinguish themselves by saying what they think, which candidates for the high court generally do not do, and by having an identifiable point of view. They are conservatives who, in Johnson's words, say the court should follow "the plain words and meaning of the state constitution" and of law.
They contrast themselves from the incumbents they are challenging on some important rulings related to property rights, public disclosure, legislative trickery to block referenda, and crime. Read the whole thing.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at May 17, 2006 10:07 AM | Email ThisHardly. If anything, the liberal "Government Party" request of the judiciary is to be an aristocracy of the left -- doling out anti-constitutional communism one step at a time.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 17, 2006 10:36 AMPrediction: FairPac will get the big bucks in October - almost too late for the challengers to use information from the PDC about the contributors to get the message out about how the incumbents are receiving those payoffs for the rulings they delivered.
"More and more, outside the arousal issues of religion, sex and personal privacy, mainline liberals have become the Government Party, whose request of the judiciary is to let the government alone"
They are not supposed to "defer" to the legislature, they are supposed to "defer" to the constitution and the people. They also are not supposed to insert their own legislative agendas into their rulings.
"Letting the government alone" equates to an abdication of their role as a check and balance on legislatures or executives overstepping their constitutional authority.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on May 17, 2006 11:28 AMstill waiting for that excuse.
So, I'm "a shameless blind liberal apologist for petty criminals and butt pirate liberal Democrats?" And you changed Stefan's backroom alleys to back rooms. You also didn't address my question to Stefan about where the ballot counting was being moved to, as he seemed to be implying. Nor did you address the presence of both the partisan (R and D) and non-partisan observers. In what way does raising these questions make me "a shameless blind liberal apologist for petty criminals and butt pirate liberal Democrats?"
Can you back up what you say with anything other than lies, smears, and distortions? Does the truth really make you so uncomfortable that you feeeel the need for irrational emotional attacks on anyone who asks questions whether they agree with you or not?
I'm still waiting.
Posted by eric at May 17, 2006 10:28 AM
What a refreshing idea!!!
Posted by: Bob in SeaTac on May 17, 2006 12:11 PM
That, and you're a boorish blog spammer, too. Are you gonna cry and stomp your feet and hold your breath until you turn blue when you don't get what you want?
I wasn't talking to you, but bring it on. Try saying something that makes sense. If you want to talk facts, go ahead. Or are inane insults all you've got?
Posted by: eric on May 17, 2006 12:50 PMInane insults are the best thing for you really.
Nothing else works.
As a boorish blog spammer, posting off-topic with an edge of preposterously amusing indignance, you invite nothing more.
Thanks for the entertainment bozo.
Hold your breath.
What, nothing to say in your own defense? why are you so rude? I'll post on whatever topic you're on. You never addressed the original points I made, but maybe that's what I should expect from a troll like you.
Posted by: eric on May 17, 2006 04:51 PMStill waiting for that excuse for being so rude. What's your problem?
Posted by: eric on May 17, 2006 05:11 PMNo, you are the one who refused argument, debate, discussion, whatever in favor of name calling and distortion. I have yet to see you make any kind of rational point. Do you feeeeeeeeeel too scared to engage someone in a real discusion, so you feeeeeel you must resort to an inflammatory screed rather than discuss things like an adult?
Posted by: eric on May 17, 2006 05:12 PMAll that any of this dogged nonsense by eric proves is that he can dish out hit-and-run remonstrations (out of context) but he can't take them head-on.
Eric is so ruled by his emotions that he loses his temper and proves that he is a shameless blind liberal apologist for petty criminals and butt pirate liberal Democrats.
Thanks eric, nicely done.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 18, 2006 10:11 AMAgain, here is the interaction which occurred on 12 May:
I said:
Are the ballots going to counted at a different location than they have been? Will partisan and non-partisan observers no longer be able to observe the ballot counting process?
"...then they try to take away your right to choose how to vote, and to force all of us to have our votes counted in Backroom Alleys by member of the Teamsters Union."
How are the teamsters involved? I'm sure it would be a terrible thing if the ballots were counted by people with decent wages and health care benefits.
Will there be options for those who would rather not fill out their ballots at home or mail them in?
Wouldn't a more uniform voting system throughout the county make it easier to ensure accuracy?
Posted by: eric on May 12, 2006 12:17 PM
To whiwhich you replied:
'Hey eric.
I suppose now that you know that the elections staff are Teamsters Union members you are going to tell us that there is no reason anyone might ever think that having our votes counted by them in backrooms is questionable.
I'm sure you would also be very comfortable to have the Building Industry Association of Washington do the final tally and issue the final elections certification.
While the BIAW is not in the habit of creating spreadsheets without column summaries, and making false reports to the voters like the Teamsters en camp with petty criminals like Deanron, they can add, subtract, and discern the difference between right and wrong.
As a shameless blind liberal apologist for petty criminals and butt pirate liberal Democrats -- you don't seem to have much more to say here.
What other half-hearted and clueless attempts at corrections do you have for us?
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 14, 2006 11:53 AM
Again, what is your excuse for your insults? Did I insult you or anyone you know? Is this how you address the many 'liberal' roommates of which you are so proud of besting in 'argument'?
Posted by eric at May 19, 2006 02:24 PM
Posted by: eric on May 19, 2006 02:28 PMShe's delusional.
Who cares?
How
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 20, 2006 07:42 PM