September 05, 2006
Alexander Owens and Chambers are Crooked Jurists
Alexander, Owens and Chambers are biased in favor of governments. They abuse their position of authority to further that bias. The improper technique they employ is misstating legal arguments raised against governments.
This is a majority opinion released last November. What the majority did in that case is engineer a win for two taxing authorities by misrepresenting the legal claims the property owners raised. The actual legal arguments in the case were ignored completely. Instead of determining whether the citizens' claims had merit, the majority created fictitious, weak arguments that it ascribed to those litigants for the purposes of its opinion. It was a patent abuse of power.
In its editorial endorsing Alexander, Owens and Chambers, the P-I wrote "We've seen no evidence that the three justices have faltered in their obligation to evaluate cases intelligently, on what they see to be the constitutional and statutory prerogatives of each case." Those editorial writers misapprehend the role of the judiciary. A court's obligation is to analyze the legal arguments the parties before it frame, not substitute in legal "prerogatives" that the court wants to consider.
What happened in this case was in no way a principled decision made between competing legal arguments. This opinion is the product of a majority of the Washington Supreme Court making up weak arguments and falsely ascribing them to citizens in order to allow governments to keep some proceeds of illegal taxes.
Key portions of the citizens' legal briefing are here. The majority ignored the actual legal challenges, because those would have allowed the victims of this government overreaching to vindicate their rights.
Alexander, Owens and Chambers are despicable. They blithely denied justice to hundreds of thousands of citizens. Details of how they abuse their authority are described here.
Posted by Abyss45 at September 05, 2006
08:17 AM | Email This
1. You can't throw Justice Chambers into that mix. Survey all his votes in 6 years. Is he biased in favor of the State? Absolutely, in cases involving a criminal. What about deferring to a state entity in the case of a tax, or a piece of property in question? No way. His entire record does not support such a proposition. I agree he's made a couple of questionable votes, however, his votes in favor of the property owner or citizen plaintiff far outweigh his votes for the state entity involved . . . He's endorsed by Richard Sanders for goodness sakes. Justice Sanders would not endorse him if he had similar voting patterns as Alexander and Owens. To group Justice Chambers with those two is plain unfair. The fact is, he is an independent mind, and while I disagree with him on certain cases (see Anderson), his entire voting record, especially as to individual property rights, is admirable . . . especially compared to Owens and Alexander. And as a legal mind? Please . . . Burrage may be a future blind follower of Jim Johnson . . . so I guess if that's what you want . . . you got it . . . but if you're truly honest in your intent to vote against justices who "ignore[] actual legal challenges" in a given case, voting for a unqualified candidate (see Burrage) who will have foreseeable difficulty justifying her legal ends, when, as an appellate judge, she actually has to put on paper the means to which she came to her ends, defies your logic. In short, a vote for her flies in the face of your illusory criticism of Chambers. Or is it ok to "ignore[] actual legal challenges" if the court reaches your desired result in a given case? The fact is, if a Judge is going to be a Judge true to traditional form, sometimes the outcome is one in which he disagrees with . . . but because he has a duty to uphold the law, and not a certain outcome, the ends are sometimes disappointing, even as to him. As a former appellate law clerk I'll take substantive reasoning over a guaranteed outcome every time. Outcome over substantive reasoning is for the politician. I'll be voting for Groen, S. Johnson, and Chambers.
2. What about what WSSC Justice Tom Chambers did - failure to report a motorcycle accident that he was responsible for ? Why is noone talking about that ?
3. I'm not sure the fact he was in a one vehicle accident where they rode off and the passenger was checked for injuries later has much to do with his voting record. I heard him on Dori Monson -- he apologized. He said he let his insurance co. know, etc., it's not like he was hiding it. There's always talk about how we want to talk about the "issues" in a campaign, so I'm not sure the relevance of him not calling the cops because his bike skidded out at 7 mph has to do with his voting record. Nor do I see how the accident refutes his judicial record. But anyways, ... just so I'm straight, for future discourse...let's ignore McGavick's little "omissions" with regard to his DUI and talk about Chambers oversight of filing a police report in his "tragic" motorcycle accident. Ok, got it. Here's a slogan, "Vote for Burrage cuz Chambers can't ride a bike, was involved in an accident involving damage to property over $700 per RCW such and such, and failed to file a police report." That slimy son of a gun. You've convinced me, vote for Burrage! Wait! (sorry it took me a second to base my vote for a Supreme Court Justice on irrelevant mudslinging...but i think i have it now!) Since we're not talking about the issues, vote for Chambers! . . . Burrage at one time did not allow women to wear pantsuits in court...that slimy son of gun. How dare she! What else can we dig up that's unrelated to their substantive record as a Judge? Talking about this stuff is more fun anyways, and it doesn't hurt my head...all that talk about their actual records, property rights, and the actual law (gasp) gave me a headache. I wonder if Chambers is for skirts? Probably. In that case, Vote for Burrage!! Wait, I'm for skirts! Vote for Chambers!
4. Ray wrote: "Or is it ok to "ignore[] actual legal challenges" if the court reaches your desired result in a given case?"
Certainly not.
Ray also wrote: "The fact is, if a Judge is going to be a Judge true to traditional form, sometimes the outcome is one in which he disagrees with . . . but because he has a duty to uphold the law, and not a certain outcome, the ends are sometimes disappointing, even as to him."
That statement is of course true.
In the case at issue, Chambers signed off on a majority opinion in which the law was not upheld. The judicial system in that case in fact was perverted, because the majority substituted in strawman legal arguments and then falsely ascribed those spurious claims to the appellants. If you were an appellate clerk I'm sure you would agree that that is a gross violation of the justices' oaths to decide cases impartially.
5. But I also wrote, . . . "I agree he's made a couple of questionable votes, however, his votes in favor of the property owner or citizen plaintiff far outweigh his votes for the state entity involved." So I think we do agree Abyss or at very least we're not that far apart . . . his vote in that case was "questionable," a gross violation? Not so sure ... but alas, my overall point was that it is simply unfair to group Chambers with two others who seem incapable of applying the law to the facts of case time and time again. Chambers, over 6 years, has been able to adequately apply the law in the vast majority of cases. I understand your beef in that case, but to call him 'crooked' is a bit of stretch. You disagree with the holdings in that case -- fair enough. But in this race, I'm confident, even though i may very well agree with a larger percentage of Burrage's "outcomes," that Chambers would be (and has been) vastly more impartial. I liken Burrage's judicial philosophy to Jim Johnson, of which I agree with most of his outcomes and votes, but when he writes, his written opinions (majority, concurrence, dissent) often leave much to be desired in the way of "means." Geez, I should be getting paid by this guy, I've spent entirely too much time defending him, without compensation :)
6. "You disagree with the holdings in that case . . ." Uh, what [he/she/it] wrote is the real claims in the case were ignored and made-up claims were inserted into the opinion so the governments would not have to refund any of the taxes.