Sound Politics: Johnson declines to participate in KCBA's biased judicial candidate evaluation

June 09, 2006

Johnson declines to participate in KCBA's biased judicial candidate evaluation

Supreme Court candidate Sen. Stephen Johnson has written to the King County Bar Association to decline to participate in what he says is a biased candidate evaluation process, Postman reports. Johnson, a Republican state Senator, observed in his letter to the KCBA that members of the evaluation panel have in recent elections "contributed approximately $19,000
to partisan Democratic candidates and $800 to Republican partisan candidates." He also notes that the KCBA panel has given poor marks to other recent Supreme Court candidates, including Justices James Johnson and Richard Sanders, for no apparent reason other than that their judicial philiosophies are different from that of the Democrat-leaning members of the evaluation panel.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 09, 2006 12:26 PM | Email This

Comments

1. Boy, that was a smart move by a smart person.

It reminds me of a candidate for US House of Representatives that went to a union meeting to get their endorsement for him as a Republican.

He jokingly reported afterwards that even though he said he had no chance for the endorsement, they respected him for even showing up in the lions' den at feeding time.

Posted by: swatter on June 9, 2006 12:32 PM

2. I read both the letter and the column. The response to Johnson's letter was what I'd expect from a lawyer...and no, I don't mean that as a compliment.

Johnson did good. It's time someone called the Bar on their bias.

Posted by: South County on June 9, 2006 12:43 PM

3. Compare and Contrast Johnson's restraint with Dean Logan's glee while attending Dem Events here.

Posted by: Jeff B. on June 9, 2006 12:49 PM

4. This is just what Rossi tried to point out in 2005. We know it's true but they do not like anybody to point it out.

James S.

Posted by: James S. on June 9, 2006 01:10 PM

5. maybe I'm getting too happy with my word of the week, but the powers that be in Washington state have a lot in common with FASCISTS.

Posted by: Andy on June 9, 2006 01:50 PM

6. Kudos to Sen. Johnson and to his campaign manager, Jeff Cox, for declining to participate in that charade.

Posted by: stu on June 9, 2006 02:09 PM

7. It appears that the ABA does indeed stack the deck leftwards in its rating of judicial nominees.

Ed Whelan has done considerable research into the ABA's Standing Committe on Federal Judiciary, and finds strong evidence of bias directed against Bush nominees to the D.C. Circuit Court.

See http://bench.nationalreview.com/

If the Washington branch of the ABA is as biased as its Federal committee, there's little hope that any judge who might appeal to conservatives would receive more than damnation by condescention from our local luminaries.

Posted by: Hank Bradley on June 9, 2006 03:02 PM

8. And besides: Who cares what a bunch of lawyers have to say about potential judge!

Posted by: TG on June 9, 2006 03:18 PM

9. Might as well have Karl Marx juding you than the ABA.

Posted by: pbj on June 9, 2006 03:24 PM

10. Glad to see this panel being "outed" for its liberal bias. Take that, KCBA; you've been found out!

Posted by: Misty on June 9, 2006 03:27 PM

11. "And besides -- who cares what a bunch of lawyers have to say about a potential judge!"

Exactly our point, TJ. You're catching on.

Posted by: stu on June 9, 2006 03:48 PM

12. Stefan
I hope you will post a list of recommended judicial candidates for this years election. Kind of like the newspaper editorial endorsements, only better.

Posted by: ba on June 9, 2006 04:48 PM

13. I will not hesitate to vote for Johnson, especially since he won't submit to the bar rating, which is fueled by special interests. In fact, it may be better judgment to check and see what their ratings are for the various candidates and vote for the candidate with the lower rating - but more importantly look and see who supports both candidates, then vote accordingly.

Any additional information on the judicial candidates would be much appreciated.

Posted by: KS on June 9, 2006 07:26 PM

14. Good for him! A step in the right direction.

Posted by: Clean House on June 10, 2006 10:44 AM

15. re: ba's Comment:

OMG, what a sickening prospect. A Shark-Approved List of judicial candidates. And Stefan's qualifications to do this are . . . . .

I thought so.

But, on the plus side, it would allow those voters with a brain to figure out whom Anne Coulter would favor, and to act accordingly.

Seriously, I challenge anyone to offer anything but partisan rhetoric to support the contention that the King Co. Bar Assn. judicial evaluation panel is biased. In truth, y'all just can't stand it when somebody with a brain comes to the conclusion different than yours. It's the same mind-set that leads Pres. W to only talk in front of hand-picked groups of True Believers, and to kick out the dissenters who manage to avoid the screeners.

The fact is, none of you sharkheads believes in real democracy or a true marketplace of ideas. Postman's article says:

"Steve Johnson . . . is backed by conservative groups, including the Building Industry Association of Washington and the Constitutional Law PAC, a group formed by Alex Hays, Jim Johnson's former campaign manager."

Who wants to bet me whether Steve Johnson will be willing to sit for those groups' judicial evaluations?

Posted by: The Ump on June 10, 2006 08:12 PM

16. A Shark-Approved List of judicial candidates...

What a great idea! See, even a chucklehead can have a (ever so slightly) lucid moment!

Posted by: alphabet soup on June 11, 2006 07:13 AM