September 12, 2006
Judicial Endorsements
For what it's worth, I'm in the same boat as Stefan on Supreme Court endorsements. Jim Miller has some interesting thoughts, but my own look at the candidates hasn't found Jeanette Burrage to be qualified for the State Supreme Court, judicial philosophy aside. I'll be enthusiastically voting for John Groen and Stephen Johnson, and will probably vote for Tom Chambers as well. Of the challengers, Johnson seems most likely to have the best shot at winning, even if he has to go through to a competitive general election to do it, despite electoral antics from the other side.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 12, 2006
10:55 PM | Email This
1. Ex-judge Jeanette Burrage is indeed well qualified for the supreme court. You've been listening to the dim wits on the bar association again.
2. I'm surprised Ron Sims doesn't just appoint these judges.
3. I've met Burrage and discussed a case with her. She is emminently qualified, Mr. Earling.
4. A quick look at Tom Chambers web site shows that he is endorsed by the WEA, AFL-CIO, former judge Talmadge, and the league of conservation voters. With that kind of supporters, he won't get my support. I will vote for Burrage.
5. Wow Eric,
What an open minded man you are to accept Chambers into your graces. Can't quite make the full change on the court?
Just info for all of you waffling conservatives.
Chambers believes he is above the law, by fleeing the seen of an accident two months ago.
Ruled in favor of tax money being spent on benefits for homosexual couples. Heinsma vs. Vancouver.
Ruled to allow a non-custodial lesbian couple custody of a child. Sue Ellen ('Mian') Carvin v. Page Britain.
Ruled in against the Defense of Marriage Act
Chambers endorsed by National Abortion Rights League, Marriage Equality (Gay Marriage Group), Unions & Trial Lawyers.
Sounds like a real winner. Don't let your greed blind your morals.
6. I'm moderately intrigued by the number of people that have seem truly upset about the lack of enthusiasm for Jeannette Burrage in recent threads on judicial endorsements here at Sound Politics. Neither Stefan nor I have endorsed Tom Chambers, yet some people seem to be unglued about the fact neither of us is as thrilled with Burrage as we are with Groen and Stephen Johnson.
Putting aside one's political preferences, a quick look at the campaign thus far indicates that Chambers is likely to win in a walk. There are bigger fish to fry this year than trying to defend Burrage. Such energy would be better spent trying to elect Groen and Johnson. Groen especially needs every bit of help he can get in the primary.
But, since some people seem stuck on endorsements Chambers has received from liberal groups (what are they going to do, endorse Burrage?), I should in fairness list notable endorsements Chambers' website includes from non-liberal sources:
Justice Richard Sanders
WA St Patrol Troopers Assoc.
WA Assoc. of Realtors
BIAW
King Co. Prosecutor Norm Maleng
Snohomish Co. Sheriff Rick Bart
7. There's some new info. up at the PDC website. The FairPAC/Cit to Uphold expenditures are interesting. It appears to be spending in support of Alexander (and against Groen), but not much at all in the other races. Hopefully this means Owens is toast. Chambers has plenty of his own dough, and all the big shop p.i. lawyers of course are ready with cash for him. He's a solid guy for those who make a living maximizing claim payments out of insurance companies.
Anyhoo, the big contributors to FairPAC/Cit to Uphold are SEIU ($100K), WEA ($52K), and Tribal groups (upwards of $100K).
This is how incumbent judicial candidates get paid back for their votes in cases already decided, and it sends a message to the others on the bench who will be campaigning that they better know whose side to be on in upcoming cases if they want their bread buttered (and not their challenger's bread).
8. It is the Sanders supposed endorsement that has me baffled. Burrage is a strict constitutionalist, as is Sanders. I wonder where the 'falling out' occurred, or whether Sanders is pulling an "Earling" and picking his battle.
I know that is what the Realtors and BIAW do.
9. Eric, I agree with your likely vote for Chambers. I was arguing about this with folks last week in some public blog on this site who were attempting to throw Chambers philosophy and rulings in with Owens and Alexander. If one is to be fair about it, it's just not possible to argue such a grouping. I disagree with some of Chambers rulings (notably Anderson) but the endorsements speak for themselves. Not too mention the fact the alternative, Burrage (like Owens) is completely unqualified to assume such a position, even though, I would likely agree with most of Burrage's potential rulings on the court, given her seemingly conservative judicial philosophy. However, the truth of the matter is she hasn't had much time to be a lawyer because ever since she left law school she's been running for some form of judicial office...which strikes me as odd and a potential reflection of her motives and character. Is it all about her and her unquenchable need to become a judge?...hmm... or truly doing some good and administrating justice in a fair matter on behalf of the folks of Washington? I'm not persuaded given her record...
10. Maybe the reason Sanders and the BIAW, among other conservative groups, have endorsed Chambers is just that Burrage is flat out incompetent. Here is a good one for you, from a 1998 Court of Appeals decision. In the early 1990's, a friend of Burrage's came to her and asked her to prepare a new will for the friend's husband's stepmother. The prior will had left him one dollar, in favor of other relatives. Burrage wrote up the new will as directed by her friend, making the husband the primary beneficiary. Burrage then took the will to the convalescent home where the stepmother resided and got her to sign it. She did not discuss the contents of the new will with the stepmother before drafting the will, she did not talk to the stepmother's doctors and she did not get a medical evaluation. Guess what? The stepmother had Alzheimer's, also known as senile dementia. Burrage was sanctioned as a result of her marvelous legal work. Either she knew her friend was pulling a fast one or she was too thick to notice, either unethical or stupid. Do you really want someone like that on the Washington Supreme Court, just because she claims to be a conservative?
Throw in the fact that in a 1999 KCBA survey of attorneys, Burrage was easily the lowest rated superior court judge, with 54% of attorneys rating her unsatisfactory or less than satisfactory in decision making and overall performance. The next lowest judge was around 45% and no other judge reached 40%. These ratings were restricted to attorneys appearing before the judges rated. Given that in most cases there is a winner and a loser, it takes some doing to make both attorneys think you are incompetent.
A few additional points - Burrage was rejected by attorneys more than any other judge while she was on the bench. She also had a significantly higher than average reversal rate on appeal.
11. wayne, isn't the last two paragraphs a positive on the Burrage ledger?
Burrage has real time experience as an attorney other than your anecdotal case.
12. Swatter:
There are two possibilities:
1) The attorneys surveyed were prejudiced against Burrage for some reason, more than any other judge; or
2) Burrage was a really bad judge.
I take it you don't have any personal knowledge or expertise on the issue, so for ideological reasons you have decided the first alternative is correct.
I am not sure what you mean by anecdotal. The facts are laid out in a Court of Appeals decision, and the fact that she was sanctioned is a matter of record.
It is apparent you don't care if Burrage is incompetent, so long as she says she is conservative.
13. Well of course the cops and prosecutors would endorse Chambers over Burrage. A Justice Burrage would actually enforce the Constitution more often than Chambers.
We can't have that!
14. Well of course the cops and prosecutors would endorse Chambers over Burrage. A Justice Burrage would actually enforce the Constitution more often than Chambers.
We can't have that!