October 07, 2008
Rossi and the Judges

In the Vice Presidential debate, the candidates were asked if they could think of a single issue where they changed a long held view. Joe Biden answered that when he "went on the Judiciary Committee as a young lawyer, I was of the view and trained in the view that the only thing that mattered was whether or not a nominee appointed, suggested by the president had a judicial temperament, had not committed a crime of moral turpitude, and was - had been a good student.

And it didn't take me long - it was hard to change, but it didn't take me long to realize that the ideology of that judge makes a big difference." - in other words, no conservatives on the bench.

The result of such thinking is now reflected in the Rossi-Gregoire contest. Two former judges, Faith Ireland and Robert Utter, are participating in a lawsuit claiming that Dino Rossi improperly solicited campaign contributions from the Building Industry Association of Washington prior to his announcing his candidacy for governor. That the suit is blatantly political is without question. There is no chance it will be resolved before November 4. Having two former judges out front on the issue gives legitimacy to the charges true or not. It serves the purpose of sowing doubt in the minds of the undecided just as the frivolous suit brought by the Democratic Party over Rossi's use of GOP rather than Republican as his party identification.

The public saw through that one but may be swayed by the latest claim because two judges are involved. Ireland and Utter are both know as liberals but inserting themselves in a last minute "October surprise" accusation calls into question their impartiality as judges. Should the Bar Association review their past decisions to see if political bias rather than the law was the basis of their rulings? Being former judges should not bar them from speaking out on issues but it should give then pause before agreeing to participate in a patently political lawsuit.

Please make any comments on this post civil and to the point.

clearfogblog

Posted by warrenpeterson at October 07, 2008 04:28 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Maybe I'm wrong -- but the fact that this is a lawsuit and not an investigation conducted by the authorities lends the case less credibility, insofar as the lawsuit tries to make Rossi look corrupt.

Moreover, anyone inclined to vote against Rossi because of a BIAW association wouldn't have voted for him anyway.

Good post, the lawsuit is obviously political, just like every lawsuit against BIAW has been.

Posted by: Zeeb on October 7, 2008 04:51 PM
2. I think the *only* goal of this lawsuit is to fill the news media with the phrase "Dino Rossi has to/will testify..." Just having "Rossi" and "testify" in the same sentence will tarnish his image with independents who don't follow things too closely.

This is going to be a real bummer if it ultimately costs him the race. Gregoire wins again on subterfuge, underhanded tactics rather than on the merits of her candidacy.

Posted by: blindman on October 7, 2008 05:00 PM
3. Blindman @2:

I share your concern, and that does seem like the tactic, but the play for Rossi here seems straightforward -- stress the fact that it's Gregoire's statehouse that's run up massive state debt, threatening Washington residents with cut services and increased property taxes. And they're trying to change the subject to trumped-up lawsuits tying Rossi to...an organization which builds homes for Washingtonians.

Posted by: Zeeb on October 7, 2008 05:07 PM
4. Thing is, the lawsuit is so late in the game that Rossi won't have to testify -- and shouldn't have to even discuss testifying -- anytime soon, or ever -- and certainly not before the election.

But more to the point, Rossi should point out what this is: a lame attempt to distract voters from Gregoire's terrible stewardship of the Washington economy. Economy, economy, economy will beat out an attempt to tie Rossi to...an organization that builds homes.

Posted by: Zeeb on October 7, 2008 05:10 PM
5. Sorry for the double post; I thought the first one was deleted.

Posted by: Zeeb on October 7, 2008 05:12 PM
6. I remember Joe Bidens debate comment, and thought at the time it was a good reason to disqualify him from any office. If this is his idea of "advise and consent" he should step down now. Unless the retired Supremes can manage to freeze Rossi's campaign funds their law suit will amount to nothing. The fact that they would stoop so low can only mean their good friend's campaign is running scared. I wonder if Judge earring in Wenatchee will get this case?

Posted by: ROCKETMAN on October 7, 2008 05:42 PM
7. It does bother me that in Judicial races the voters don't get the same opportunity that congress does. Yes ideology matters. Problem is the general public has very little access to where a judicial candidate stands.

Unfortunately most people don't care even though they should.

Posted by: Vince on October 7, 2008 05:45 PM
8. Oh, they'll drop the 'lawsuit' right after Queen Christine wins.... no matter how many re-counts it takes THIS time.

Posted by: Uncle Steve on October 7, 2008 06:08 PM
9. They are only trying to dirty up Dino, plain and simple. Nothing else has worked; so now they try this. May it completely backfire on them.

PS--After the election those ex-judges won't give a flip about this.

Posted by: Michele on October 7, 2008 07:07 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?