Today's Seattle Times editorial praises King County Superior Court Judge Richard A. Jones, who has been nominated by the White House to the federal district court for Western Washington.
Hmmm. Chimpy Bushitlerburton can do no right these days, so when the Times characterizes Jones as a "moderate", I'm disinclined to believe that he's a moderate in the way that most Republicans would use that word. Indeed, after somebody in the administration lamented that "it's highly unlikely that we could do better in Seattle [than John McKay for the federal bench]", the reasonable inference is that the White House settled for someone who wasn't even as good as McKay.
How moderate is Jones? He and his wife have only a modest track record of in-state campaign contributions, small donations to liberal Democrats and liberal judges. So no, the guy's no moderate Bushie. The most troubling of his donations is $50 to re-elect Justice Susan Owens last fall. As Owens herself alleged, anybody who makes even a small contribution to a State Supreme Court race is too biased to even moderate a candidate debate, so one has good reason to question Jones' impartiality as an actual judge.
On the positive side, Jones brings some badly needed diversity to the bench. He would be the only judge on the Seattle federal court to sport a beard. Judge Zilly has a moustache, but's that's hardly the same thing. I value bearded judges. As a member of the Hirsute-American community, it's important to me that other people who look like me are well-represented among the dispensers of justice.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 27, 2007 11:09 AM | Email ThisI agree with you at the Appellate and US Supreme Court level. That really is the arbitar of law.
The District Court level has some room for a full discussion of the issues.
For example - what ever happened to the Tort reform that was being heralded in early 2005 ? Among the provisions would have been loser pays. That one thing would have had a profound effect on our f***'ed up justice system. So what did they do ? sit on their hands when the Repubs were in majority. As a result, it is too late now to move forward with any meaningful tort reform - once again, the White House/Republican-controlled Congress blew it !
Posted by: KS on March 27, 2007 12:32 PMAt least Ridgeway was convicted. Oops, that's right, he confessed, so maybe being the judge during Ridgeway doesn't get a glowing (not unglowing either) reference.
Posted by: swatter on March 27, 2007 12:34 PMcan you please define "moderate bushie." i tend to think that it means only moderately incompetent.
examples would help; i.e. who is a moderate bushie?
Posted by: dinesh on March 27, 2007 12:35 PMI'm going to go with WVH on this one.
TrueSoldier, we will never live in a perfect political fantasy world. People will always have different viewpoints. Personally I'd prefer to see a moderate judge who would listen to all sides and rule that way rather than a partisan hack judge who's made their decision before the case even starts. Heck, you're probably still fuming about Lawrence v. Texas.
This explosive story doesn't make the front page of the "conservative" Times, but makes it to the front page of the PI.
Go figure......
The Times has as much credibility as Faux News Distortion.
Posted by: Facts on March 27, 2007 01:39 PMI would do the same if you guys asked me to testify on the subject. You guys would get me on perjury and I don't know anything on that subject.
Posted by: swatter on March 27, 2007 03:17 PMI say: The so-called "Republican" leadership probably thinks that Richard Jones isn't not as "good" as John McKay, because Richard Jones simply is not as liberal as John McKay, and Jones' family doesn't support Democrats nearly as much as McKay's family does.
Oh, because they'll fabricate something illegal like in the Libby case. Lesson learned...why help the democrats fabricate a story? Why help the democrats "investigate" something that clearly was not illegal? Why help the democrats on their fishing expedition?
The question isn't why take the 5th. The more important question is why not? What can be gained by contributing to the witch hunt?
Posted by: drw on March 27, 2007 04:25 PMI would be screaming "5th Amendment"!!!!!!!! if I was anybody connected with Gonzales.
Posted by: Rocketdog on March 27, 2007 05:12 PMA couple of questions from the very proud and happy independent. Both parties with their tests of ideological purity are coming close from the indie perspective of moonbat territory. There are core issues that I would like addressed no matter who is making the selection:
1. How the candidate feels about stare decisis and following the rule of law.
2. How the candidate has dealt with difficult issues where on a personal level they feel one way, but the law says something different.
3. How does the candidate feel about private
property issues.
4. Does the candidate believe in equal justice
under the law.
5. I am not a big fan of importing legal decisions
from other countries, how does the candidate feel
about that.
Doesn't the person have to undergo a comfirmation procedure? Isn't that the time to flesh out these issues? Is the issue with Judge Jones that he may be failing a litmus test with some who are intensely ideologically driven?
I am not telling either dems or pubbies how to run your respective parties. From my perspective, as an independent, I am put off by the politics of personal destruction. Both parties may scoff at us, but as close as elections have beeen, you need some indie votes.
Posted by: WVH on March 27, 2007 09:54 PMoversight can be abused. i think after an "asleep at the wheel congress and senate" since 2000, its about time some oversight over the incompetent bush adminstration took place.
Posted by: dinesh on March 28, 2007 11:20 AMI read your posts from time to time.
I am not at the point of calling you an idiot, but it is close. First, this is primarily concerned with the qualifications of a candidate for the federal bench.
You make the typical secular progressive logical fallicy in an argument. Take an instance of potential or actual wrongdoing and you argue with an example of another potential or actual instance of wrongdoing. Secular progressives argue in this manner because they are moral relativists and can't imagine instances of universals. A couple of questions:
1. Is corruption wrong?
2. Is corruption wrong only if the other side
is accused of corruption?
3. Do you want systems in place at whatever level
of government that assure accountability and
efficiency?
Is it only when corruption benefits secular progressives that it is OK. I think corruption is wrong period because I am not a secular progressive nor conservrative troglidite.
Now, don't make me call you an idiot.
Posted by: WVH on March 28, 2007 11:35 AMYes lets do talk about "convenient memories" as they apply to Whitwater.
You call the outcome "porn" - which I guess is the typical left wing talking point - but lets see what happened out of this:
1) A state governor was convicted of federal laws so serious that he was removed from his position. Is that a serious outcome? I mean, there are less governors than senators by have and state reps by 9 to 1. That's not a small conviction.
2) If I recall, Clintons business partner also spent some serious time in jail for fraud, tax evasion, etc. I know you're a left winger and all, but even you might have to agree that putting people who swindle others in jail is a good thing.
Here's a question for you - if Clinton and Co. hadn't taken every opportunity to evade, deceive, hide, and lie, what might the investigation investigation have cost?
President Clinton committed perjury period. That's not a subject of any debate. He isn't even allowed to practice law because he had his license jerked for it.
Perhaps we might someday find out why all those FBI files on GOP house and senate members were found in the white house, too. Through whitewater investigations, we found out the Clintons had illegal access to hundreds of highly confidential FBI files. How important is that? When Nixon got caught with just one, it was at the time a much bigger nail in his political coffin than anything he might have had to do with the original breakins.
Isn't it convenient how the conviction of the governor, the finding of the files and all the other messes never got much play in the left wing press. Can you even imagine what it would have bene like if a republican had tried anything like that?