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 endorsement 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 kritocracy 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 more information.
(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"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.
Posted by: Jim Miller on August 10, 2010 06:33 PMAnd 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.
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.
Posted by: Michele on August 10, 2010 07:58 PMAnd 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.
Posted by: Rick D. on August 10, 2010 11:04 PMAnd 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".
Posted by: demo kid on August 11, 2010 06:02 AMThis 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.
Posted by: jstar on August 12, 2010 01:35 AMThanks fro pointing me to the Stranger's endorsement so I know who to NOT vote for.
I shall vote to re-elect Jim Johnson.
Posted by: pbj on August 12, 2010 09:25 AMResearch 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!
Posted by: pbj on August 13, 2010 05:37 AMBut 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.
Posted by: AD on August 13, 2010 06:35 AMMy 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.
Posted by: Teri Pittman on August 13, 2010 10:55 AMJohnson - 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.
Posted by: JustTheFacts on August 13, 2010 01:48 PM