September 13, 2006
The tragedy of the Alexander Court: A dozen years of appalling, liberty-destroying rulings

Why am I voting for John Groen and Sen. Stephen Johnson for State Supreme Court? Because I believe they will do a much better job than the incumbents of protecting the people's constitutional rights to fair, open and accountable government.

Incumbents Gerry Alexander and Susan Owens have spent their tenure on the bench systematically dismantling our constitutional rights. Here are just a few of the incumbents' most appalling and destructive decisions:

December 1996. CLEAN v. State. Gutted the people's constitutional right to referendum, by granting to the legislature exclusive prerogative to declare an "emergency" for any purpose, including construction of a baseball stadium. Alexander wrote the majority opinion.

October 2002 (clarified November 2004). State v. Shawn Andress. Retroactively struck down state law and ruled that an individual cannot be convicted of felony murder if the crime the individual was committing when the killing occurred was felony assault. Hundreds of killers were set free. Alexander concurred with majority. Owens and Chambers dissented.

June 2003. Parents Involved in Community Schools V Seattle School District No. 1. Gutted I-200 by allowing the Seattle School District to use racial preferences for school assignments. Chambers wrote the majority opinion. Alexander and Owens concurred.

March 2004. Sane Transit et al v Sound Transit. Ruled that Sound Transit could rely on an unpublished board resolution to deliver a project that is very different from that which was originally authorized by the voters, and without seeking new voter approval. Alexander wrote the majority opinion. Owens concurred. Chambers dissented.

May 2004. "Hangartner, v. City of Seattle". Gutted the Public Disclosure Act, gave agencies a blank-check to hide documents under the ruse of "attorney-client privilege" and invented a new exemption that agencies could reject "overly broad" requests. Alexander wrote the majority opinion. Owens concurred. Chambers dissented.

September 2004. "Yousoufian v Sims". Gutted the Public Disclosure Act yet again. Rewrote existing law and ruled that agencies are only responsible for fines per request denied, not per document withheld.Alexander wrote the majority opinion. Owens concurred. Chambers dissented.

July 2005. "Washington State Farm Bureau Federation et al v Sam Reed" Obliterated the people's constitutional right to referendum, declaring that the legislature has absolute prerogative to declare an emergency. Alexander and Owens concurred with majority. Chambers dissented.

October 2005. "Petition of the Seattle Popular Monorail Authority". Gutted protections against eminent domain abuse. Ruled that agency can take private property even if it intends to sell it to private developer at a later time. Alexander, Owens and Chambers concurred with majority opinion.

February 2006. "Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority v Miller". Further gutted protections against eminent domain abuse. Court ruled that an agency can take private property without directly informing the owner, and abdicated its constitutional responsibility to review taking decisions "without regard to any legislative assertion that the use is public" ("Out of respect for our coordinate branches of government, judicial review is deferential.") Owens concurred with the majority. Chambers dissented. Alexander wrote a separate dissent solely because of the inadequate notice. He did not dissent on the question of necessary public use.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 13, 2006 12:24 PM | Email This
Comments
1. They're statist hacks - unabashedly pro-government to the point that citizens' private rights are given no respect.

Posted by: SCCC on September 13, 2006 12:33 PM
2. They're for sale, Stefan, and so are you. One million smackeroos from the building industry, and that's not debatable.

Posted by: ivan on September 13, 2006 12:55 PM
3. Many of the liberal supreme court judges are initially appointed by the governor to fill a vacancy. If Alexander is reelected he will mandatorily retire during his term. Gregoire will appoint another liberal to succed him.

The court is the way it is becuase of the long succession of Democrat governors.

The list of atrocious decisions is spot on. We have an opportunity to elect two highly qualified lawyers to the court. They can change the court's jurisprudence and bring it back into the mainstream. This election is the most important in many years. Vote for Groen and S Johnson. I am not so sure that Burrage will be ineffective either. She is not stupid, just eccentric.

Posted by: Paddy on September 13, 2006 12:57 PM
4. Ivan: I know John Groen well. His outstanding ethics are unquestionable. He is one of the very best lawyers in his field. He understands the workings of government well. Johnson has an excellent reputation also.

Conversely, Alexander and Owens are already bought and paid for by liberal constituencies, such as labor unions and the trial lawyers. The choices between the candidates based upon character and ethics should be obvious.

Posted by: Paddy on September 13, 2006 01:07 PM
5. Great piece Shark...

Chambers is outa there for me on the DOMA vote...a bedrock cornerstone of any society is marriage...it should never even need to be in a legislature or a court...that is how close we are to a crumbling civilization.

Hey ivan buddy get your dang hands off my life....I don't care if it was billion to get these pieces of loiyer trash outa there...we either get a reasonable court or then what?? American haters like ivan love the tyranny of the courts or the Island County prosecutor or tiny little wimp loiyers from Bananas Foster or a coward judge from Thurston county assaulting the US Constitution because it attacks what gets in the way of ivan's fantasies of a rail line through every house, city streets converted to streams, a $100 per hour minimum wage and the burning of every church and an abortion for every 12 year old he beds. He just can't understand why he can't get what he wants whenever he wants it.

This is just another layer in the ever escalating war on civilization and the counter attack....but how are we to know how the votes are really counted correctly?

BTW are the State Trooopers going to hunt us down if we don't vote the old man back in...scary that they are endorsing judges...or are fire fighters going to stay home if they find out you voted for Burrage???

Posted by: Col. Hogan on September 13, 2006 01:24 PM
6. Shark--excellent! precisely my views--a lucid list of real ACTIONS by judges--no liberal emotional screaming above the talker's voice--just a rational list of facts that drive the left nuts; you can like his decisions or not--but it's all there; thanks for your article;

like your list, i knew i had chronic pain, but didn't bother to count all the lashes received from the bench;

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on September 13, 2006 01:41 PM
7. So ivan...
Have you eaten your daily 125,000 calories bought and paid for with Union Dues that you pilfer from working people?
ivan is a sanctimonious SOB Union Thug. Boss HAWG!!
And he's real fat too!!
Take a look at this!
http://www.34dems.org/Photos2006/Aug06-Weiss-Hannigan.jpg
Ivan is the fattest one of the two goofballs.

Go ahead and poke at Property Rights, open government and pretend the unions aren't shilling for morons like Owens.
Hey, I haven't seen Susan Owens lately.
What happened ivan, did you eat her??

ivan has absolutely ZERO shame,pride or self respect. How could anyone allow themselves to become so grotesquely fat that really cared about the welfare of this State and it's citizens???
ivan SUCKS off Union Dues (where dues are MANDATORY!!!) and screams about BIAW where membership is VOLUNTARY!!
ivan is bitter & disgusting.

Posted by: ugh on September 13, 2006 01:46 PM
8. CAUTION! Liberalism is a debilitating disease. It causes its followers to make statements such as: "They're for sale, Stefan, and so are you."

As a disease it also causes its followers to ignore information such as the following reported in the Olympian on Sept. 05:


"One such left-leaning group initially was called FairPAC - it has since renamed itself Citizens to Uphold the Constitution.
It formed with money from the Service Employees International Union, environmentalists, tribes, trial lawyers, the state teachers union, state employee groups and abortion-rights groups.

This group, which has the backing of Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire, has almost matched BIAW by raising $275,440."

Posted by: Rant Buster on September 13, 2006 02:04 PM
9. Neither John Groen nor Stephen Johnson have ever been judges in their lives. But they are the best candidates that BIAW money can buy.

You're all sticking up for a government for sale. I'm hardly surprised.

If you support Johnson and Groen, you support govermnent for sale. That's all there is to it. Government for sale to the highest bidder. Might makes right. That's what you're for -- govermnent for sale, justice for those with the money.

Oh, yeah, liberalism is a disease, and I hate America, and I'm fat. I guess you told me.

Posted by: ivan on September 13, 2006 02:22 PM
10. " Neither John Groen nor Stephen Johnson have ever been judges in their lives. But they are the best candidates that BIAW money can buy."

If having never been a judge was a disqualification, then 5 of the current judges would not be sitting on the court! None of the other candidates, not even Gerry Alexander had argued 17 Sipreme Court cases prior to coming into their position.

Groen IS the most qualified.

Posted by: pbj on September 13, 2006 02:56 PM
11. "Neither John Groen nor Stephen Johnson have ever been judges in their lives."

I'll bet you think Earl Warren did a great job. Heck, you probably think Dave Beck and Jimmy Hoffa were innocent.

Posted by: Judge Judy on September 13, 2006 03:14 PM
12. pbj... don't you DARE allow facts to interfere with your opinions!

The bizarre fact that Ivan conveniently chooses to overlook?

The left bought Alexander and Owens years ago.. All you have to do is look at their endorsements.

But in Ivan's world, I guess it's OK for the left to make the purchase. I keep forgetting the double standard, situational ethics rule: If it's left; good, good. If it's right; bad, bad.

Posted by: Hinton on September 13, 2006 03:14 PM
13. Yes, Ivan. And we have hope the judges we buy and own will look more favorably on legislated law, follow the rule of law spelled out our consitiution, not manufacture changes in the laws, and not rule against private property owners in the manner of the judges you and your persuasion are buying and owning.

Ivan, thank you for posting your opinion. It has caused Stephan and others to dig for and post helpful factual information about the candidates. I needed that.

Posted by: Curtis Mohr on September 13, 2006 03:55 PM
14. "Oh, yeah, liberalism is a disease, and I hate America, and I'm fat."
Posted by ivan at September 13, 2006 02:22 PM

Good ivan....get it all out of your massive, grossly overweight system. Recognizing your "inner beliefs" is an important part of rebuilding yourself into an even remotely acceptable human being.

PS...You are not merely fat ivan....you are dang fat!

Posted by: ugh on September 13, 2006 05:27 PM
15. Perhaps ivan would be wise to consult a whacked out spiritual healer before he starts confessing his sins.
Try this one ivan---
www.shantimai.com

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on September 13, 2006 05:29 PM
16. Paddy, could you provide some instance of Burrage's "eccentricity"? I'm not very familiar with her record, just have some recent personal contact and would appreciate additional info from those who are familiar with her professional record.

Posted by: mark on September 13, 2006 06:02 PM
17. As lead counsel in the CLEAN case I concur with Stefan's observations. The court's decision in that case (and the others highlighted by Stefan) illustrate the lengths to which the "political class" will cover their collective rear ends. Groen and Jonson strike me as intelligent men who respect the foundations of our Constitutions - protection of liberty and property. Time for a change.

Posted by: Shawn Newman on September 13, 2006 06:52 PM
18. I just met Groen today at a forum. Good guy! Believes we have an individual right to life, liberty and property, and that the function of the Constitution is to protect us from excessive government! Yay!

But Chambers isn't as bad as you say above. He dissented (the right way) on a lot of the cases above, and his opponent, Jeanette Burrage is not qualified for the position.

You are right about Stephen Johnson.

Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 13, 2006 07:01 PM
19. Thanks for the list of Alexander accomplishments. I still say Jeanette Burrage is well qualified for the Supreme Court.

Posted by: JB on September 13, 2006 10:39 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?