August 25, 2006
Sanders to Gregoire: "Hands off these elections"

In a guest editorial in today's Spokesman-Review, Justice Richard Sanders slaps Mrs. Gregoire for trying to influence the state Supreme Court races

when [Mrs.] Gregoire involves herself in judicial campaigns, she is undermining the court's independence by sending an unmistakable message to members of the judiciary about which side their bread is buttered on. Stand up for private rights against government encroachment and she'll raise big bucks to replace you, and vice versa.
I think you've already had plenty of influence over who sits on the courts. Hands off these elections. This is the time the people decide who sits on our courts, not the governor [sic].

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 25, 2006 11:45 AM | Email This
1. OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now that's what I call a "BITCH-SLAP"!!!!!!!

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on August 25, 2006 12:00 PM
2. Kind of gutsy, I'll admit. Taking on the Queen. Look at what it got Stefan.

Posted by: swatter on August 25, 2006 12:07 PM
3. "Stand up for private rights against government encroachment and she'll raise big bucks to replace you, and vice versa."

That is a very troubling statement for those of us who follow the Libertarian path. My biggest problem with the Democrats is their trampling on private prpoerty rights. The recent SCOTUS decision approving the taking of private land so that the assets could be sold to greedy developers represents the triumph of Democrats destroying individual property rights.

Apparently Queen Chrissie has put our Supreme court on notice that they'll be "turned out" if they don't go along with bigger and bibber government (all for the glory of egotistical leftist, like Gregoire). The trampling upon the rights of indiciduals to enjoy their private property is an abomination against the Constitution.

At least Stefan's blog is calling attention to our autocratic governor. On Goldy's blog, they can't get enough of Gregoire and her arrogant mindset. One particular rodent over there even went so far as to dictate to me that private property rights were merely an illusion. This harebrain's contention was that property rights could be taken asay at the discretion of the government. He saw nothing sacred about ownership.

Private property rights are sacred. When neo-socialists like Gregoire imply they'll punish judges who agree with this law we all have a lot to worry about.

The sooner crackpots with Chrissie's views are replaced, the safer we'll all be to enjoy our property rights.

Posted by: Libertarian on August 25, 2006 12:11 PM
4. What did it get Stefan, swatter?

Posted by: Daisy on August 25, 2006 12:11 PM
5. That article should be printed in every newspaper in the state!

Posted by: sgmmac on August 25, 2006 12:16 PM
6. The thread title and line from Justice Sanders has a lot of double meaning in it.

A real Supreme court, untouched by democrat party influence, would never let Deanron's shenanigans in the King County elections department stand.

By telling Queen Christine to get her hands off the WASC races, he's also pointing out how we the people can get her grubby hands off the other races.

Posted by: Steve_dog on August 25, 2006 12:19 PM
7. Here are Justice Sanders' and Justice Jim Johnson's comments at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's June policy session: "Freedom
and the Courts
." Sanders starts at 9:48 and Johnson at 37:43. Q&A
starts at 1:10:20.

Posted by: Jason on August 25, 2006 12:21 PM
8. glad to see the editorial; influence the judiciary? this from the Great Legal Deadline Blower; how about some of those raised funds going to pay us taxpayers back for the blown settlements, etc under her purview & control?

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 25, 2006 12:27 PM
9. I always have liked Sanders. His historical perspective and grounding in the real issues is impressive.

Makes for an interesting contrast with the former AG, doesn't it? It's the rule of law and what's best for society as a whole, rather than pecuniary machinations.

Gregoire offends on so many levels that it's difficult to grasp the enormity of the problem.

Posted by: scott158 on August 25, 2006 12:45 PM
10. You mean like interest groups who bring action before the Court giving tons of money to a candiate. Oh wait, thats diffrent right.

Posted by: Giffy on August 25, 2006 01:29 PM
11. You mean like interest groups who bring action before the Court giving tons of money to a candiate. Oh wait, thats diffrent right. - giffy

By jove, you've got it. Private party interest groups - like the trial lawyers and BIAW - are 'diffrent' from the head of the Executive Branch of government. Whew. Thanks. I was confused there for a second.

Posted by: jimg on August 25, 2006 01:38 PM
12. Sanders could get rid of Gregoire if he had the guts to do the right thing.

Posted by: Don on August 25, 2006 01:57 PM
13. Or could it mean special interest groups who file politically motivated lawsuits at the urging of party hacks to attempt to influence an election? Where is the part time waitress these days anyway?

Posted by: Smokie on August 25, 2006 01:58 PM
14. Daisy is a new name on the "commentors" (to quote a horrible new talk show coming up on KVI).

Stefan has become the scourge or the lightning rod for every election related item emanating from the Queen and her royal court (Sims- the court jester). He is looked to by the meek and the masses (like me) as the Robin Hood of crooked elections. He steals votes from the Democrats (which they stole in the elections) and gave them back to the poor. It is a neverending battle for truth, justice and the American way.

Sanders has taken on the Queen much the same way.

Posted by: swatter on August 25, 2006 02:02 PM
15. Yeah it's okay to buy Judges and you like.

Posted by: danw on August 25, 2006 02:35 PM
16. A rather disingenuous editorial given the Governor's support of the two incumbent justices is in direct response to the fact that Justice Alexander's opponent received "just in time" big money donations from majors PACs prior to being affected by the new campaign finance law that took effect in June (J. Alexander chose to abide by the law prior to its enactment out of deference to the Legislature's intent with its passage)(see R. Thomas, "Campaign cashes in before new donation limits," Seattle Times, June 14, 2006).

The judiciary *is* up for sale in this State by virtue of the fact that members of the Court are directly elected. If anything, the Governor is trying to remedy the disadvantage both incumbents face given the manner in which their opponents have conducted themselves.

Frankly, I think it's ridiculous that we directly elect justices for the simple reason that they too must now pander to the electorate like politicians. When we force judges to act like politicians the integrity of our system -- the checks and balances of our government -- is broken.

Posted by: Mens Rea on August 25, 2006 03:53 PM
17. Mens Diahhrea--
Either you fail to understand this issue is seperation of the Executive & Judicial....
or you are trying to re-frame this issue comparing Executive Branch interference with PRIVATE contributions from citizens.....
or you are STUPID.

I particularly laugh at this line.......
"If anything, the Governor is trying to remedy the disadvantage both incumbents face given the manner in which their opponents have conducted themselves."

The INCUMBENTS have a disadvantage?????????????
Bad Try====No Sale

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on August 25, 2006 04:35 PM
18. It just proves that the Democratic Party Leadership do not care for the people. They always claim to be the peoples party. But actions speak louder than words. Basically the Democratic party wants the right to steal a persons home or business if they do not follow the party line. Watch where they selectivly use these powers. It will never be where a Democratic Leader is located. But used as a tool to get rid of those evil Republicans. If you can not get them to close their mouths destory thier businesses with more regulations. Take their business for the good of the government.
Basically our good governor has shown that there are no property rights in this state. Only the right of the state to take your property from you. Sounds a lot like Communism. Taking from someone for the greater good(making them more powerful). It is a sad day when this type of attitude is considered acceptable behavior. Next will be the income tax because of the greater good.

Posted by: David Anfinrud on August 25, 2006 05:08 PM
19. I don't agree with everything Justice Sanders supports, but with his editorial - he will get my vote in his next election. Gregoire is shameless for practicing - shall we call it Communism-American style.

Posted by: KS on August 25, 2006 06:31 PM
20. Ummmm... Every branch has always sought to influence the other. Legislators campaign for exec positions and vis versa. Both are know to criticize the Court and the Court often asks the legislators to pass laws. Hell at the federal level the Exec appoints the justices. Look if the Gov had refused to honor a court ruling or tried to fire a justice you would have a point.

Either you are fine with politicizing judicial races or your not. You can't be ok when one side does it and not when the other side does.

Posted by: Giffy on August 25, 2006 07:22 PM
21. About property rights here in Washington: I do believe (or at least I have heard this) that property rights are written into the Washington state constitution so it would be hard to do a Kelo here.

Once again, I haven't actually READ the Washington state constitution, just been told (by a reliable source) that's what the scoop is in these parts.

Posted by: G Jiggy on August 25, 2006 09:24 PM
22. This guest editorial by Justice Sanders is terrific... and the hypocrisy exhibited by our ''Governor for now'' is breath-taking:

Whine about perfectly legal contributions to candidates she doesn't like; while effectively using the power of her public office to raise huge sums of money for PACs that will support left-wing liberal incumbent judges to her liking.

Posted by: Methow Ken on August 25, 2006 10:55 PM
23. Jiggy at 21--i have a copy of WA constitution (funny--the only time my legislator actually responded on point to my request);

because of recent history, i trust no one--count your change--after the last election, attempts to kill our initiative process, 90+ 'emergency' bills, votes found post-election, 2-3 election recounts--i simply don't trust Olympia; THEY have to re-earn my trust; given the right forces and money, anything can be done or changed by Olympia; we can only be vigilant;

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 25, 2006 11:42 PM
24. Jimmie: "THEY have to re-earn my trust"

That is not among their priorities. Matter of's actually antithetical to their mindset. Theirs is an agenda of pecuniary interests with brass knuckle sensibilities. The things that you care about are seen not just as speed bumps along the way, but rather represent the enemy.

Posted by: scott158 on August 26, 2006 12:30 AM
25. RE: Jimmie, Funny thing is that they don't. They only need to earn the trust of a majority of the people in their district. Unless thier district is comprised of rightwing cranks, your trust is unessecary.

Posted by: Giffy on August 26, 2006 07:05 AM
26. Giffy-

Thanks for calling a spade a spade.

I weigh in with Jimmie. If wanting an election process I can trust, judicial impartiality, the right to own property and do with as I please (within reason), freedom, liberty and the persuit of happiness - than PLEASE call me a rightwing crank. I will wear the title proudly!

I also concede that Olympia doesn't give a rat's a$$ about guys like Jimmie and I.

Posted by: Jeffro on August 26, 2006 08:24 AM
27. Or me.

Olympia only cares about me to the extent that I continue to pay my "tributes". No quid pro quo, no accountability, not even breakfast in the morning ;'}

Fraudoire's conduct is typical - crass, craven, and shameless. The scummiest of political hacks - no wonder giffy is so taken with her!

Posted by: alphabet soup on August 26, 2006 08:47 AM
28. The judiciary is partisan now a has long been that way. The fallacy of non-partisan races is now exposed as the sham it is.

So what do we do? We play by the rules the game demands - even when they are unwritten.

Quit whining about the other side and pony up like the Builders and others who support conservative judges.

Posted by: deadwood on August 26, 2006 10:06 AM
29. "Nonpartisan election" is an oxymoron. Every election is partisan. The so-called "nonpartisan" format simply operates without the truth in labeling of the partisan format.

Posted by: krm on August 26, 2006 11:06 AM
30. look, i'm not a politically-naive guy; i lived first-hand the effects of a big Dem Machine in a famous big city; all i want is a shread of integrity now & then;

tell me as a voter to f-off for logical, sensible or well-thought reasons and i'll respect you; just don't jack me around with lots of crap about how illegals should vote and how over 90+ bills need to be 'emergencies'--like used-car salesmen, olympia legislators do it to themselves and then wonder why they are the skunks at the wedding;

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 26, 2006 12:56 PM
31. Good point Jimmie!! Chrissy had it comming!! I don't know where Saunders stands on things but 'this time he was on point!!

Posted by: Laurie on August 28, 2006 04:07 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?