August 10, 2010
Jim Johnson For Justice
Some endorsements are easy to make,
requiring little thought. And my decision to vote for Jim Johnson was easy to make, after I read this
from Eli Sanders. (Warning: The endorsement is in the Stranger, so it might not be
suitable for children.)
Sanders, like many on the left, prefers
to democracy — assuming, of course, that the judges are politically correct. (And far too many
of them are, these days.) So his front-page article supporting Johnson's opponent provides all the
reasons those of us who prefer democracy to kritocracy need to vote for Johnson.
Johnson is also clear on this point. In the voter guide, he says:
Six years ago Justice Johnson made a simple promise to the people of Washington: he would uphold
the law and constitution as written and never legislate from the bench.
Johnson's opponent is less clear on the same point, but provides enough hints that he will legislate
from the bench to win Eli Sanders' endorsement.
Here's Johnson's site, for those who want
(Should one automatically vote against every measure or candidate backed by Sanders? No, he
isn't always wrong, though it may seem that way at times. But you should treat any candidate or
measure he backs with suspicion.)
Posted by Jim Miller at August 10, 2010
02:55 PM | Email This
1. The endorsement you linked to doesn't support your statement that Sanders believes in legislating from the bench. Instead it criticizes several cases of Johnson's legal reasoning. Admittedly it just quotes snippets of decisions, and the quote from Rumbaugh misses the point, but I don't believe you when you say that the article is what made it easy for you to decide to vote for Johnson.
2. Hints is bad. Aqua Buddha told me so.
Bruce - Here's one example from the article:
"Here's the direct line from that giant, preventable drop-off to a subsequent giant defeat for the Washington progressive community: Two years later, in 2006, Johnson, happily ensconced on the state supreme court, wrote an opinion strongly supporting the court's 5-4 decision to uphold Washington's ban on gay marriage."
Sanders is unhappy because Johnson did not legislate from the bench.
And you can find other examples if you look carefully.
(For the record: I am mildly opposed to gay marriage, mostly because I think that it is likely to lead to legalized polygamy, which I think would be very bad for our society.
I am extremely opposed to having that issue (and similar issues) decided by judges, even elected judges.)
BTW, I usually try not to question other people's integrity, unless I have good reason to do so -- and I would appreciate it if you would do the same. I had not thought much about that race until I saw the Sanders article.
Jim@3, if you'd quote in context, you'd note that the very next sentence criticized 2 parts of Johnson's legal reasoning. Tip: If you want to quote someone out of context, don't provide a link that makes it obvious you're trying to mislead us.
And unless you're Eli Sanders's shrink, how do you know why he's unhappy? He says he's opposed to legislating from the bench, yet you are sure he means the opposite. Is that because you think there are no constitutional grounds for overturning gay marriage bans? 44% of the WA Supreme Court, not to mention a very sharp judge in CA, beg to differ. That may not persuade you, but it should keep you from impugning Sanders's motives.
You may be "extremely opposed" to having judges decide issues like gay marriage, but if a law is unconstitutional, their job is to strike it. Even if that makes you extremely unhappy.
"The endorsement is in the Stranger, so it might not be suitable for children."
lol,....or anyone else, for that matter. At least that's what I keep finding on those rare days that I even pick it up.
Doesn't take long to find out from this ridiculous article from Seattle crap rag "the stranger".The byline by this simpleton is enough to turn off anyone with an IQ approaching room temperature:
And Defeat an Anti-Gay, BIAW-Bought, Eyman-Backing, Pro-Guns-for-Kids Conservative Tool
Not to mention that Rumbaugh has nothing approaching a resume that makes him to be qualified for the position. Considering the lack of common sense this nation used in November 2008, putting an unqualified dolt in charge of the country, doesn't mean we won't learn from that mistake and refuse to put such a dolt on the Washington state supreme court in 2010.
So let's see... a judge is essentially bought with money from special interests, and doesn't use objective information in rulings? Seems like whiny conservatives love these things, except when they're against them.
And Jim, the charge of "kritarchy" is completely meritless, and just a little pathetic. As Republican Ted Olson stated in a recent interview, it seems that for many conservatives, "legislating from the bench" simply means "making decisions you don't agree with".
9. If Chief Justice Alexander is campaigning for Jim Johnson, he must have something good to offer. Alexander is liberal and Johnson is conservative, but also one who minimizes legislating from the bench in the eyes of both sides of the aisle.
"I'm going to literally ignore the fact that Johnson is transparently bought and paid for, ruling an obscene amount of times in favor of a private campaign donor he used to work for". Great endorsement, Mr.Miller, the critical thinking applied to that matched only by your clearly well-thought out opposition to gay marriage on the hilariously unsupportable idea that it would lead to polygamy (just like in Canada, right?). I can only imagine your opposition to "legislating from the bench" would have stopped those silly "checks and balances" that allowed JUDGES (of all people!) to force integrated race marriage over the will of the always-correct majority! I can only assume allowing black and white people to marry increased polygamy too.
This would be hilarious if it wasn't so amazingly shortsighted. People, please look up on your own what Jim Johnson is really all about before you vote for him in fear that his opponent will begin "legislating from the bench" in the form of upholding basic constitutional rights.
I also love that the evidence in support of how Johnson would NEVER legislate from the bench (except for the association that donated $140,000 in order for him to rule in their favor in cases he never removed himself from) is...campaign literature. Saying he won't. Hahahaha, seriously? You must have an incredibly low opinion of your reader's intelligence.
Thanks fro pointing me to the Stranger's endorsement so I know who to NOT vote for.
I shall vote to re-elect Jim Johnson.
12. Yeah Jim thanks for posting a left wing endorsement so everyone can have a knee-jerk reaction to it. The only intellectually honest part of this post was where you said how little thought you put into it.
13. I heard Johnson discuss these people who are SEIU-funded outside interests trying to smear him. Johnson is acutally the good guy in the race. The SEIU machine folk call him a "tool", but in fact---as so often when liberals call someone something it is actually the LEFT who is doing what they falsely accuse others of--- it is the ambulance-chaser opponent of Johnson who actually IS a tool of the SEIU radicals seeking to buy his seat so they can get the rulings they want; the law be damned, whatever it may be. They don't care; they just want what they want even if the law doesn't say they can. Johnson is fair, and applies the law. He refuses to legislate from the bench. That's what people want; but that is precisely what the SEIU and other radical leftists DON'T want. They want a stacked court that will do their bidding; the citizens be damned.
Well we don't want that kind of tripe; vote for Jim Johnson! And send the SEIU crowd packing. Don't pollute our courts with SEIU tools.
Thank you jstar for asking me to "look up on your own what Jim Johnson is really all about before you vote".
Research shows that Jim Johnson is a man of integrity and character with a long resume that makes him ideal for the position.
Research of his opponent shows a man lacking those qualities.
I have zero doubts about Jim Johnson now!
Yeah, jstar is right. I read this post thinking at some point you were going to make an actual argument other than Stranger/Sanders = bad. But you really don't. What does it mean to be a conservative? I'd like to think that we have our own ideas and we don't just do whatever happens to be the opposite of the liberals.
But you do make an actual argument in the comments, Jim, in saying that gay marriage will lead to polygamy. But you offer no evidence. Do you have any?
I think most rational people would find that to be an extremely odd and tenuous connection you're trying to make. I'd guess you were looking for a reason to oppose gay marriage and that seemed logical to you? Well, it's not logical.
We have got to do something, to take back the courts.
My boyfriend is involved in a lawsuit with DNR over a lease that expired in 2002. I met him in 2008 and this year, purchased the upland property from his mother. She's in ill health and the property can't be sold any other way, in part to the lawsuit.
I've now been joined to the suit, just in case I ever happen to file for a lease with DNR. So I am going to be held financially responsible for cleanup of property that is not mine and for a lease that I've never been involved in. And the court has also conveniently declared a legal relationship with my boyfriend that I don't have in fact. It also means that anyone who purchases property that is upland of a DNR lawsuit may find themselves in a similar situation. I am angry beyond belief.
Rumbaugh is nothing but a slip and fall, creepy John Edwards style of lawyer.
Johnson - Over 700 cases as a member of the state Supreme Court. Over 140 opinions, including more than 80 majorities and concurrences in majority.
Rumbaugh - NONE
Johnson - More than 100 appellate cases prior to joining the court, including cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and state Supreme Court. This includes the U.S. Supreme Court cases that defended Washington's Blanket Primary, won for the state our 9th Congressional District and protected voting rights.
Rumbaugh - Not even close.
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Johnson - Criminal Prosecution, Washington State Counsel for the Environment, Chief of Special Litigation for Washington State, Senior Deputy Attorney General for the Fish and Wildlife Division, attorney in private practice specializing in constitutional law, appeals and the initiative process. Justice Johnson's experience includes major civil rights experience, defending voting rights, free speech rights, direct democracy rights, property rights, water rights and more.
Rumbaugh - "Personal injury, worker's compensation and wrongful death.* In otherwords, a slip and fall lawyer. The sleeziest of the sleezeballs.