Today's P-I reports on a forum for Supreme Court candidates at the Washington State Trial Lawyers Association in Seattle. "Lawyers hear from top-court candidates".
[Justice Susan] Owens was applauded by her trial-lawyer audience, meeting at the Westin Hotel, when she said this year's campaigns for the court are being dominated by a "big, special-interest group ... and I deplore it. It needs to be stopped, right here and now."Thank God for those non-partisan trial-lawyers who help us keep the special-interest money out of Supreme Court races! Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 20, 2006 10:06 AM | Email This
I just wonder when the rest of the people will pick up on this mantra from the Trial Lawyers, unions, etc. that back some of these candidates.
The trial lawyers are just envious and jealous that there free ride in electing the Supremes is over. People are catching on.
Keep up the good work, SP.
Posted by: swatter on July 20, 2006 10:42 AM"American Association for Justice"? Don't make me laugh! More like "Liberal Association for Partisan Lawyers Affecting Politics" (LAPLAP).
1. Owens keeps her own personal record of how often she rules in favor of Trial Lawyers. Note: she didn't refer to a score card WSTLA produces, but one she keeps on herself. I have never heard any Justice BRAG to a special interest group about how often they vote with them. I am shocked this wasn't quoted in the papers.
2. Owens attacks "special intersts" but her campaign is funded almost entirely by Labor and Trial Lawyers.
3. Owens said she "sometimes defers to the legislature and sometimes doesn't". To anyone concerned about judicial activsm this comment is deeply offensive.
No one has ever waged a more negative campaign for the state Supreme Court. Her attacks threaten the public's trust in our justice system, judicial independence and the public's ability to cast an informed vote.
Please write a letter to the editor of your hometown paper defending Steve Johnson, or demanding that Owens stop her smear campaign.
Posted by: Court Watcher on July 20, 2006 10:58 AMAlexander is going to be very distracted when he is on a witness stand within the next two months. It won' be a pleasant experience for him. Same for Owens.
Posted by: Don on July 20, 2006 02:50 PMWhat will you discover next? That Blacks are more likely to contribute to the NAACP? Or that religious people are more likely to donate to religious charities?
Posted by: Mickymse on July 20, 2006 03:45 PMHey, geoduck, how about the fact they contribute and then they carry on a negative campaign that it isn't fair when the other side gets contributions from someone other than themselves?
I suppose if they can get away with it, what the heck? That is not a good attitude.
By the way, Don, what do you mean Alexander will be in the witness box? Is there some lawsuit against supreme court justices I am not aware of?
That is an amazing statement.
You mean like when big labor puts BIG bucks into a democrat candidate's coffers while the R has to go and get $$ from a bunch of little guys?? Big Labor is ALWAYS dumping boatloads of cash into Dem candidates' pockets! Judicial and otherwise. And have you SEEN what the tribes drop into the till of Dem candidates?? It's amazing!
Partisan democrats have to stop taking money from special interests while turning around and pointing the finger at everyone else who might do the same. If the lib candidate was awash in dough, they'd be saying "well that's too bad".
Please, people. having more money than your opponent is not a sin (unless, apparently, your opponent is a democrat?). Stop pretending that only Dems are allowed to successfully raise money for their races. The double standard doesn't wash!
Posted by: Misty on July 21, 2006 12:32 AMBIAW actually represents business interests and as we know, the business climate in the State is not good. Boeing would have moved out without some subsidies. So there is a need for the BIAW.
BIAW represents us little guys who cannot threaten the State with taking our business elsewhere. For example, I have long thought of moving to Idaho and Montana and Wyoming to avoid the heavy handed regulations and taxes of this State. But, since I have been here 40 years this year, I find it hard to pack up and leave.
Wayne, the pain I feel is the horrible impact and influence the WEA, trial lawyers, unions, and yes, now the BIAW, wield on the government. I yearn for the good, old days.
But, Wayne, even this governor-select knows the devastation to the State economy that would be caused if the BIAW and it subsidiaries were to hit a business cycle downturn. So, don't hammer just the BIAW, but all special interests.
And if the numbers you are quoting are correct, just think that a few years ago, the trial lawyers, et al had a tenfold advantage over the BIAW in judicial races when the BIAW did not participate.
BTW, you should read some of the BIAW articles and exactly what they are fighting.
Posted by: swatter on July 21, 2006 07:13 AMI was talking specifically about judicial races, not psrtisan, non-judicial races, so your discussion of R-D fundraising is off the mark. It is also an interesting take on that issue since traditionally, the GOP raises more money than democrats nation-wide, unless by the little guy you mean people like Tom Stewart or McCaw.
What I was trying to point out was the reverse double-standard that I see here in the comments. I don't think anyone can deny that the BIAW and its friends have made a concerted effort to donate a lot of money for certain judicial candidates. It seems obvious to me that the BIAW is doing this not because it believes the candidates it supports will be good judges in any objective sense, but because the BIAW expects those candidates if elected would make rulings supporting BIAW's pecuniary interests. For instance, I would expect the BIAW to strongly support Justice Sanders because he leans strongly in favor of property rights and tax cuts, issues the BIAW supports. The fact that he is very much a civil libertarian, and some have even charged pro-criminal, which certainly is out of step with most conservatives in that area, is of little concern to the BIAW. Now BIAW has the right to do this. But peeople who disagree with the BIAW also have the right to point out what is happening, and to try to even up the fund-raising. What results, and what is happening now, is that the candidates not supported by the BIAW have two choices. Accept the fact that they are going to be out-spent 3 or 4 to 1, or find sources of funds to even things up. It seems hypocritical to me to criticize Alexander and Owens for trying to close the money gap under the current circumstances. Of course, if they are re-elected, conservatives will see them as tools of the evil lefties that funded their races. On the other hand, to the folks here Jim Johnson is just a good judge, in no way beholden to the industry that funded his election. Regardless of who wins, making judicial elections hugely expensive partisan races doesn't seem like a good idea in the long run.
The Supreme Court does not have the guts to come out with a decision on gay marriage before November- in spite of what Owens says. Do I think it would be the wrong decision if they did ? probably. What about on the 1% property tax limitation being upheld - which is represented by Rob McKenna ? That is another controversial decision than may affect the elections - any bets on the outcome of this one ?
Posted by: KS on July 21, 2006 06:44 PMOne shortcoming of the check and balances of power in US Government is that judges are given a free pass - they don't have to be accountable for fear of being recalled (if they are appointed) and too many of them abuse their power. Owens and Alexander and other liberal judges on the WA State Supreme Court are too often using their power and an arm of the Democrat party. Too many of the black robes on the bench are sneaky and not to be trusted. As long as the actions of the judiciary show that they are crossing the legislative line, they need to be held under a microscope until proven otherwise.
One shortcoming of the check and balances of power in US Government is that judges are given a free pass - they don't have to be accountable for fear of being recalled (if they are appointed) and too many of them abuse their power. Owens and Alexander and other liberal judges on the WA State Supreme Court are too often using their power as an arm of the Democrat party. Too many of the black robes on the bench are sneaky and not to be trusted. As long as the actions of the judiciary show that they are crossing the legislative line, they need to be held under a microscope until proven otherwise.
Groen and Johnson spoke to the Trial Lawyers Assn. - which doesn't mean that they are counting on their support. Why shouldn't they have spoken to them ? Bush also spoke to the NAACP last week and he sure wasn't counting on their support.
I believe WSSC decision about gay marriage is mostly about politics and the leftist judges who would favor it are in no hurry to vote for that until the danger of not getting reelected has passed, because they know that it hurt their chances in November. If this occurs, its just another example of the WSSC attempting to be an extension of the State Democrat Party. They may also decide to throw it back to the State Legislature, which is the right thing to do here.
My understanding is that Alexander was a Republican before he became a judge. At any rate, to those who understand the terms, Alexander is generally considered to be a judicial moderate.
Am I to understand that you think I should shut up because I don't agree with you? Good luck with that.
Posted by: wayne on July 23, 2006 12:48 AM