Eli Sanders of The Stranger explores the dilemma gay right’s activists face should the WA State Supreme Court toss out our state Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and instruct the Legislature to enact “appropriate remedies.”
Last week, the chief justice of the Washington State supreme court, Gerry Alexander, took the unusual step of setting a timetable for the court’s highly anticipated (and politically explosive) decision on same-sex marriage. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Alexander said the court was aware of the public’s eagerness for a ruling and hoped to decide the marriage case before early March, when this year’s legislative session ends.
The comment immediately set off intense speculation: What did this rare public comment by the chief justice mean? Why would the court be pushing to decide before the end of the legislative session? Does the court’s desire to do so signal a plan by the justices to declare the state’s ban on gay unions unconstitutional and then direct the legislature to come up with an appropriate remedy before the session ends?
That last possibility is one that worries gay rights activists. Like their conservative opponents, they have been spending a lot of time these days thinking about possible decision scenarios and plotting their best political moves given various hypothetical outcomes. And the trickiest outcome is the one in which the Democrat-controlled legislature is told by the court to come up with a law recognizing gay unions. Would legislators have the courage to endorse full equality
Yep. There’s no other conclusion you can reach after looking at the interest group crap that’s been tainting judicial elections lately. The BIAW and its soul buddies may have instigated it, but whatever way it goes its just a bad idea.
Incidentally, I have been unable to find copies of the Stranger where I usually do (local libraries and the Crossroads mall). Is something up, or is it just some unfortunate coincidence?
I hope gay marriage proponents are remembering there are responsibilities that go with being married to someone. It’s not all bennies: just ask someone who has gone through a divorce and has been held financially responsible for the debts of a former spouse!
As long as gay people understand that there are rights AND responsibilities associated with marriage, I support their goals.
“As long as gay people understand that there are rights AND responsibilities associated with marriage, I support their goals. ”
You think we’re just in it for the flowers?
Jeff on Capitol Hill –
No, I don’t think gays and lesbians are just in it for the flowers. I think that financial aspects are prominent in this push for same-sex marriages, such as health insurance coverage, the right to a deceased spouse’s IRA or 401K, estate benefits, and other advanages of spousal status.
Of course there are other issues to consider, but since I work in the financial sector, I tend to emphasize that in my views. Fair enough?
I agree with the premise that electing judges is wrong, especially as it relates to the Supreme Court. What you have is six year terms, but really there is constant campaigning going on. Every two years, three of them are up for election. That means that whoever is up basically has to pander for campaign contributions by how they author their opinions.
For example, today a case came out Drebick v City of Olympia. The BIAW was on one side, and you can guess who went that way. BUT THIS PROBLEM CUTS BOTH WAYS. On the other side was a local government, and right down the line the Judges you would expect to go that way did. Regardless of where they get the big contributions from, the Justices have to back up their “ideological” bretheren/sisteren because they will need the reciprocity in a year or two when their seat is up for election.
This truly is a terrible way for the bench to be filled. It is contrary to justice actually being served (whatever your political stripe).
The unfortunate fact is that winning a Supreme Court seat means getting the most campaign contributions. Judicial candidates can not campaign on how they would vote on certain issues, so he/she with the power to buy the most campaign splash wins. How that plays out when it comes time to write opinions is that we now have nothing but a highly coreographed charade, replete with a fair bit of incomprehensible jargon. Outcomes are determined by “market” forces. Instead of focusing on how it will play in Gucci Gulch, those in the black robes should be paying attention to what the parties are saying and what the law is.
Gay marriage, hell gay anything evokes a primal rage in many of my fellow citizens that is horrible to see. It is like a living thing, so furious and vicious. People will give up logic, reason, compassion, common sense:
KING: Janet, will you say that your cause is hurt when you hear of a Matthew Shepard?
PARSHALL: Well I will say what Jonathan Dunn, the great poet said, “Every man’s death diminishes me.” I think his death was egregious. …
KING: You don’t question that’s why he was killed?
PARSHALL: Well, there’s a lot of questions about his background. Was he, in fact– and this is no way, shape or form a justification of what happened because it was wrong, wrong and wrong. Let there be no ambiguity there.
Cut thru the bullshit and the lady PARSHALL is ultimately saying that Mr. Sheppard got what he deserved. One of the supposed talkers in Talkers Magazine is reduced to a crazy lady spouting hate and bile. All in the sweet name of compassion.
Goldy is right unfortunately. Maybe if this were some other time or place, it would not be so. But this is my country ‘tis of thee 2006. The court is adjourned.
link did not show
One of the supposed top 100 talkers in Talkers Magazine is reduced to a crazy lady spouting hate and bile. All in the sweet name of compassion.
top 100 talkers in Talkers Magazine
HTML is tough. No margin for error
Lib, I believe Jeff’s comment was meant sardonically and/or rhetorically. Lighten up, dude.
And, frankly, being divorced, I’m all for gay marriage. No reason they shouldn’t suffer like us breeders, eh? What I can’t wait for is when gay divorced folks get that, “Oh, u r divorced” damaged goods sneer from the some comely thing they are trying to woo. That’ll be an “Oh my God, what have we done” moment, eh?
[Seriously, potential schadenfruede aside, I fully support gay marriage.]
Well lets be clear, Judge Sanders is happy playing the role of political tool for the right wing. The more powerfull political move for the court would be to rule after this session ends and thus to make this issue huge in the 06 elections. The fear of the issue is far greater than the potential backlash from the reality. So if the court has the votes to direct the legislature to make a choice would it not make more sense for them to let the issue twist in the wind till next spring. On the other hand, if they throw it to the legislature now the result will be a rush to act with a greater likelyhood of a more cautious less progressive outcome. So we shall see.
Larry the Urbanite –
That was good, dude. Thanks for the laugh. I’ll try not to take things so seriously!
>>What I can’t wait for is when gay divorced folks get that, “Oh, u r divorced” damaged goods sneer from the some comely thing they are trying to woo.<< Funny, but that happens now all too often already. The only difference is that the person trying to woo "some comely thing" is divorced as a result of a failed heterosexual marriage. I've talked to quite a few guys that went through the "if I just marry a girl, it will cure me of this awful gayness".... only to find out that those feelings just don't go away.
Here’s the link to the case that came out today:
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opini.....ons.recent
Looking at this breakdown of majority vs. dissent provides a crystal clear picture of where the campaign contributions came from and are expected to come from.
what concerns me about the judicial debate is that if appointments are the rule, there still needs to be something in place to ensure some facet of protection against tyranny.
The legislative and executive branches have measure to repeal someone who is improperly wielding authority. So must judges. I admit the aspect of appointments for life is daunting,
Maybe direct elections, which are occasionally no more then a popularity contest, are not the best way for judges. As long as there is some redress to remove a bad judge, I am fine with the change.
Anyone claiming that appointments are too partisan should consider that elections are equally as partisan.
As for gay marriage, i am for a ban on government sanction of any marriage in any way.
Let the government issue a civil union recognition or certificate of registered domestic partnership for all parties, gay or hetero, and everyone is held equal in state and federal benefits, particularly federal taxes which is really the biggest gained benefit. A committed gay couple shouldn’t be dnied tax exemptions.
let marriage ceremonies be no more then what they historically are, an observance for the individuals, with no legal meaning, at churches or in communities. That way a church can perform or not perform a marriage ceremony according to their doctrines and no one is hurt or denied any rights, because the legal recognition is based on the civil union or domestic partnership certificate, and a church marriage ceremony has no impact on a couples essential rights outside the walls of the church.
Make the government equally reconize the relationships at the lowest possible level and get them out of the marriage game altogether.
It wont happen anytime soon, but it should.
If Gerry Alexander thinks (as The Stranger‘s Eli Sanders suggests) that there is a March deadline for getting something to the legislature for them to act on, he doesn’t understand their timetable very well. The legislative session opened on January 9; it ends on March 9. But the key dates in the 2006 Session Cutoff Calendar are February 3, when bills have to be reported out of committee (if they haven’t been passed by then, they’re dead), and February 14, when they have to pass on the floor of the house where they were introduced. It’s a short session; things are moving quickly—or not at all. March is too late, so let’s not overdo the speculation.
It’s as pointless to suggest we stop electing judges as to suggest that potholes fill themselves. There’s no way that the Constitution will be amended on this point since there will never be two-thirds of each house of the legislature plus a majority of voters that agree on both the need for a change and the specifics of such a change. If you’re worried about the tons of money being injected by BIAW, work on campaign donation limits or, better, get the state law that gives BIAW in particular lots of money for operating a state program changed
. . . and representives from the state Bar Association
No. Nonononono. Nothing in this State is any more political than the Washington State Bar Association. Just ask Doug Shaffer, the guy the WSBA suspended after he caught The Cadillac Judge with his hand in a client’s pocket. Keep the WSBA the hell out of it.
I frankly don’t understand why government’s in the business of issuing “marriage” licenses at all. Government should be issuing licenses for civil unions only. If couples choose to marry, they may do so following the civil union in the ceremonial ritual of their choice. Civil unions for everyone – it’s the only way to truly comply with the fairness doctrine.
Exactly Geni
Goldy, this is a redundant post
You already got Dean Logan covering for ya’ll. Elections are in the bag.
ps sanders isn’t that well liked by the right…
On what grounds do I as a married person tell others who want to be married that they are undeserving of the joy and comfort I’ve found in the married state? What right do I have morally to say that I deserve something that they do not? If I believe that every American deserves equal rights, equal protections and equal responsibilities and obligations under the law, how may I with justification deny my fellow citizens this one thing? Why must I be required to denigrate people I know, people I love and people who share my life to sequester away a right of mine that is not threatened by its being shared? Gays and lesbians were at my wedding and celebrated that day with me and my wife and wished us nothing less than all the happiness we could stand for the very length of our lives. On what grounds do I refuse these people of good will the same happiness, the same celebration, the same courtesy?
I support gay marriage because I support marriage. I support gay marriage because I support equal rights under the law. I support gay marriage because I want to deny those who would wall off people I know and love as second-class citizens. I support gay marriage because I like for people to be happy, and happy with each other. I support gay marriage because I love to go to weddings, and this means more of them. I support gay marriage because my marriage is strengthened rather than lessened by it — in the knowledge that marriage is given to all those who ask for its blessings and obligations, large and small, until death do they part. I support gay marriage because I should. I support gay marriage because I am married.
Why are we looking to judges to legalize gay marriage? Isn’t that an issue for the legislature?
The problem with marriage is that it confers certain rights. While being about a man and a woman, it’s also about IRS joint-filings, health benefits, parental visitation rights, seeing your mate in the hospital, signing permission slips, and more. If by denying marraige to folks who love each other, you deny a person equal protection under the law, thus making it a legal issue.
Comment by Geni— 1/19/06 @ 1:46 pm
When I clicked “Say It” for my post along a similar vein an error ocurred, so I agree with you wholeheartedly.
I would add that a person should only be allowed to be in one civil union at a given time. I think it’s in the state’s interest to do so to ensure that community property from a union of two people is clearly defined. Multiple unions would make this much more difficult. I think it would complicate inheritence as well.
Goldy, as far as electing judges goes, is the confirmation process in the U.S. Senate any less politicized than the election of WA Supreme Court Justices? Are you saying that the WA Supreme Court is more political than the U.S. Supreme Court? I think the latter would be a hard argument for a liberal to make in the aftermath of the 2000 Presidential election.
Regardless of the gay marriage issue, I’ve always thought that the election of judges was a poor idea, especiallyl at the appealate level. 98% of the electorate has no idea who the judges are or their record, much less their qualifications to decide competing issues of law. Outright appointment is a bit better, but not much. I’ve always favored the Missouri Plan, which includes the appointment of judges initially with occassional elections on a “yes/no” ballot (to give us an opportunity to get rid of the truly embarrassing ones). It’s not a perfect plan, but the best of the available alternatives.
>>Why are we looking to judges to legalize gay marriage? Isn’t that an issue for the legislature?<< One purpose of the judicial system is to ensure that the laws that are written are actually legal. Do you think that the legislature of every State should be able to decide if it is legal for racial minorities to marry? The Constitution protects the minority from tyranny of the majority (or something like that).
Michael –
In my opinion, the judges are not “legalizing gay marriage”. When two people of the same gender go to the department of licensing and are denied a *state* granted marriage license, they are being denied a basic constitution protection…. Read Article 1 of the 14th Amendment.
RipeOne@21 Back into your smelly troll-hole. Dean Logan is praised, and rightly so, by Republican as well as Democratic election officials. Run along now, I hear your keeper calling. . . . .
Goldy, I gotta disagree with you this time! I have proof that our state’s Supreme Court is neither political nor panders to voters.
Exhibit 1: Decision striking down felony murder statute
I rest my case.
VATICAN BLASTS “INTELLIGENT DESIGN”
Says ID Is “Dogma,” Not “Science,” And Shouldn’t Be Taught In Schools
From the Associated Press:
“VATICAN CITY (Jan. 18) — The Vatican newspaper has published an article saying ‘intelligent design’ is not science and that teaching it alongside evolutionary theory in school classrooms only creates confusion.
“The article in Tuesday’s editions of L’Osservatore Romano was the latest in a series of interventions by Vatican officials — including the pope — on the issue that has dominated headlines in the United States.
“The author, Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, laid out the scientific rationale for Darwin’s theory of evolution, saying that in the scientific world, biological evolution ‘represents the interpretative key of the history of life on Earth.’
“He lamented that certain American ‘creationists’ had brought the debate back to the ‘dogmatic’ 1800s, and said their arguments weren’t science but ideology.
“‘This isn’t how science is done,’ he wrote. ‘If the model proposed by Darwin is deemed insufficient, one should look for another, but it’s not correct from a methodological point of view to take oneself away from the scientific field pretending to do science.’
“Intelligent design ‘doesn’t belong to science and the pretext that it be taught as a scientific theory alongside Darwin’s explanation is unjustified,’ he wrote.
… ”
For complete story, see http://articles.news.aol.com/n.....&cid=
Of course, my previous comment doesn’t mean ALL judges are impartial, unbiased, and apolitical. Jim Johnson, for one, is a taxpayer-paid BIAW shill. Richard Sanders has some weird ideas, but no one owns him, and he dances to no pied piper but rather his own raspy tune. The rest of them have successfully figured out what their job description is: Follow the law.
GOP CULTURE OF CORRUPTION …
CNN reports,
“(Jan. 19) – One day after a New York investment group raised $110,000 for Republican Rep. Jerry Lewis, the House passed a defense spending bill that preserved $160 million for a Navy project critical to the firm. The man who protected the Navy money? Lewis.”
For complete story, see http://articles.news.aol.com/n.....8;cid=1976
While I don’t take any particular exception to what Goldstein is saying here, I have to say, I think quoting the Eli Sanders piece in this way is unfortunate and deprives Mr. Goldstein of some credibility.
I’ve had the honor of knowing Chief Justice Alexander as a friend for some time and, since beginning his service on the State Supreme court, I’ve never known him to permit politics to play a roll in his decision process. Given what I know of Chief Justice Alexander and what I believe the record indicates, I suspect that it was his intention to promote greater public confidence in the court. For much of his tenure as Chief, Justice Alexander has worked hard to try to open up our state’s judicial process to greater public scrutiny and to ensure that the system works in a way that is worthy of the citizen’s trust. Part of that effort has been to try to promote a process that is both timely and predictable in its proceedings.
I don’t agree with many of the political views expressed by Chief Justice Alexander in the past, but of course that was before he was elected to the court, and at a time when being a republican in Washington State was a lot more “Joel Pritchard” and a lot less “Pam Roach”. But whatever his past political affiliations may have been, I believe most of the people who know and work with Justice Alexander would find Eli Sander’s speculations sadly ridiculous. If, as Eli Sanders suggests, Justice Alexander’s comments have “set off intense speculation” then I suspect he regrets making them. No one is served when the court’s motives are called into question by the media or anyone else on the basis of speculation.
In regards to Mr. Goldstein’s comments, perhaps a more salient observation about the election of justices in Washington State is the obvious need for the voters to be better informed about the character, demeanor, and experience of those running before they vote (or write editorials).
While I agree that the time has come to dispense with elected judges, I don’t believe that such action would preclude political considerations from entering into the judicial decisionmaking process. Judges, being lawyers, are political by nature. Given that they are human (at least most of them), political considerations inevitably influence them. Some, like Alito, deny this and claim that they just apply the law, but that claim is not credible. Also, because the rightwing, at least since the days of the Warren Court, has relentlessly assailed the legitimacy of the judicial branch of government, maintenance of an independent judiciary requires that judges be somewhat sensitive to political considerations. Accordingly, if political considerations influence the timing of a decision, I don’t necessarily have a problem. If, however, those considerations influence the substance of a decision, then we have a problem.
DEMOCRATS LINE UP AGAINST ALITO
CNN reports,
“WASHINGTON (CNN) — Three Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Thursday that they would vote against President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee.
“The Democrats said they believed Judge Samuel Alito would fail to check what they view as the president’s inappropriate expansion of executive power.
“‘I’m not going to lend my support to an effort by this president to move the Supreme Court and the law radically to the right and to remove the final check within our democracy,’ Sen. Patrick Leahy, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said during an address at Georgetown University.
…
“‘At a time when the president is seizing unprecedented power, the Supreme Court needs to act as a check and to provide balance,’ Leahy said. ‘”Based on the hearing and his record, I have no confidence that Judge Alito would provide that check and balance.’
“Fellow Democrat and committee member Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois also will announce his intention to vote against Alito, according to the text of a speech he is to deliver at Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago, Illinois.
“‘Based on his record, I’m concerned that Judge Alito will not be willing to stand up to a president who is determined to seize too much power over our personal lives,’ Durbin will say, according to the text.
“Another Democrat on the committee — Sen Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts — raised concerns about Alito’s nomination in light of what he said were ‘unprecedented claims by the White House for sweeping expansions of presidential power that are grave threats to the rule of law.’
…
“Two other Senate Democrats also joined the Judiciary Committee members in opposing Alito: Sens. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Max Baucus of Montana, according to The Associated Press.
… ”
For complete story, see http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITI.....l?eref=aol
WALL STREET JOURNAL: WAGE GAP IS REAL
“About 11% of income (and that’s not counting capital gains) went to the best-off ½% of Americans in 2002; 25 years earlier, they got 5.25%, according to Internal Revenue Service data ….
“Workers at the 90th percentile (those who earn more than 90% of all workers) earned 4.5 times as much as those in the 10th percentile in 2004; 25 years earlier, they were earning 3.5 times as much, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data ….
“Although economic growth in the past few years has been robust and productivity has surged, wages of typical workers in the middle aren’t rising. Where’s the money going? The big story isn’t that capital and profits are squeezing labor and wages …. Labor’s … slice of the pie hasn’t changed much in the past 20 years. The money is going in wages paid to executives and professionals at the top.”
In other words, greedy Republican businessmen are skimming the cream off the economy and screwing everybody else. For complete story, see http://money.aol.com/wsj/inves.....5709990001
conservative, regarding:
“I would add that a person should only be allowed to be in one civil union at a given time. I think it’s in the state’s interest to do so to ensure that community property from a union of two people is clearly defined. Multiple unions would make this much more difficult. I think it would complicate inheritence as well.”
So you are saying that civil rights should only be granted if its easy to do so? Cause Americans have never adapted to new things like cars, plastics or social changes like womens rights, right? I mean, if we have some sort of testing that would be able to say who the father of a child is . . .err um, nope inheritance is hard, right?
See, your statement is along the line of this is how weve always done it so we should keep doing it that way. I am having trouble figuring out why that would be a justification for imposing how you want your marriage to be onto other people.
11
“Well lets be clear, Judge Sanders is happy playing the role of political tool for the right wing.”
Sorry, PM, I can’t agree. I know Judge Sanders (not very well) and, whatever he is, he’s not a rightwing tool. In fact, he’s one of the most outspoken defenders of civil rights on our state’s high courts. Sanders’ political philosophy is Libertarian, and he is true to his ideology. His positions on property rights bear a lot of resemblance to the BIAW’s, but he is exactly the kind of true anti-Big Brother, pro-individual rights, judge who would kick Bush in the shins for his surveillance shenanigans. Unlike Alito, Sanders believes in checks and balances, and opposes unlimited executive powers.
lame catch phrase at 33:
“No one is served when the court’s motives are called into question by the media or anyone else on the basis of speculation.”
You are joking, right? A judge’s motives MUST be called into question, and speculation NECESSARILY is required. What do you think judicial-decision-making is? You certainly must not believe that pure, unvarnished reason dictates what comes out of the Temple of Justice. Repeat after me: they are POLITICIANS.
Everyone is served by questioning the motives of political leaders, and judges are political leaders in the Washington State system.
You have a submissive streak far too wide for my taste. Question authority! Why do you think land developers give to one candidate and not another? Why do you think WEA gives to some candidates and not others? It is not because they think “their” candidate is going to be more fair and balanced . . .
Regarding Alexander, I’ve seen him on TVW. He cops an amiable demeanor but I think his mind is going soft.
114
“Looking at this breakdown of majority vs. dissent provides a crystal clear picture of where the campaign contributions came from and are expected to come from.”
Naw, that’s just a coincidence. It’s a sedentary statutory interpretation case, decided in the usual fashion of our state’s schizophrenic courts:
City hearing examiner: It’s an excise tax, not an impact fee, therefore not authorized by statute.
Superior court: Nah, it’s an impact fee, not an excise tax.
Court of appeals: What are you talking about? It’s an excise tax, not an impact fee.
6 Supreme court justices: Who are you kidding? It’s an impact fee.
3 Supreme court justices: Simple logic argues that it’s an excise tax on commercial construction, because it has nothing to do with where this building is located or whether it will generate any traffic. (Written by Sanders)
Roger Rabbit: It’s hard to argue with Sanders’ logic, but his problem is he expects the law to be logical. Mr. Magoo had it right: “The law, sir, is an ass.”
33
“In regards to Mr. Goldstein’s comments, perhaps a more salient observation about the election of justices in Washington State is the obvious need for the voters to be better informed about the character, demeanor, and experience of those running before they vote (or write editorials).”
We actually get surprisingly good judges considering they are elected by the voters, some of whom are ignorant and stupid beyond belief. For example, Rossi’s hand-picked Republican judge in his hand-picked Republican county turned out not to be quite as dogmatic or pliable as Rossi was hoping.
Particle Man @11:
Well lets be clear, Judge Sanders is happy playing the role of political tool for the right wing.
As Roger notes, Sanders is a libertarian conservative rather than a tool of the wingnuts; he’s a different kind of nut.
Methinks you really meant to say Jim Johnson, the Supreme Court’s wholy-owned subsidiary of the BIAW. I believe the US Chamber of Commerce is currently working to acquire a Justice (and a Johnson) of its own in retiring Senator Stephen of the 47th LD.
18
“No. Nonononono. Nothing in this State is any more political than the Washington State Bar Association. Just ask Doug Shaffer, the guy the WSBA suspended after he caught The Cadillac Judge with his hand in a client’s pocket. Keep the WSBA the hell out of it.”
Having belonged to the WSBA for better than 30 years, I cannot let this comment stand unchallenged. The WSBA is the LEAST political of the organizations I hang with. And when it DOES get criticized for being too political, it’s criticized by our conservative and libertarian membrs as too liberal — then these critics get criticized for being too political. No, the WSBA isn’t political. It’s merely an entrenched bureaucracy that suffers hugely from inertia. It took them over 100 years to conclude that lawyers having sex with their clients while representing them and taking their money is a bad idea.
Comment by bill— 1/19/06 @ 4:15 pm
“So you are saying that civil rights should only be granted if its easy to do so?”
No, I’m saying that any person, regardless of sexual orientation, should only be allowed one civil union at a time. Are you for allowing a person to have multiple civil unions at one time?
“See, your statement is along the line of this is how weve always done it so we should keep doing it that way. I am having trouble figuring out why that would be a justification for imposing how you want your marriage to be onto other people.”
What are you advocating instead? If you failed to comprehend my post, I’m in support of homosexual couples having the same rights as heterosexual couples in the eyes of the state.
Comment by Roger Rabbit— 1/19/06 @ 4:45 pm
“It took them over 100 years to conclude that lawyers having sex with their clients while representing them and taking their money is a bad idea.”
Whether the WSBA is overly political or not, you’re not providing ringing endorsement for them to be choosing our state’s judges. I’d have to think other appointment scenarios would be better.
Goldy,
I am not a fan of appointments for life. A proposal I like is to make judges go before the voters periodically in a referendum-style affirmation or rejection of the judge (they would not be running against an opponent, but against their record). Appointment for life means we the people have to suffer through whatever judicial temperament the judge has forever.
Sure, the most demented judges can suffer impeachment, but if a particular issue (I am thinking of California’s Chief Justice Rose Bird) proves an individual is no longer competent to serve, a two-thirds (66.7 percent) negative vote can boot them out of office. The Governor should then fill the opening on the court.
All judges should be selected and appointed by those with a net worth north of a billion dollars. Both original intent and the concept of free speech lead to this conclusion. If anyone questions a judge’s motives, they can answer to me.
Even judges have to learn their place.
Conservative, So why the limit on numbers? Yes, I will state it clearly, if the government has no place determining who marries who (and I agree with that so long as those being married are all able to give legal informed consent), then folks should be able to marry as they please.
If two guys both want to marry the same woman and all three agree, why would you want to stop them. It seems to me that having three earners in the house would allow one to stay home with the kids, isn’t that beneficial to the country?
Why would you want to place that sort of artifical limit there?
bill @49
Pardon me for jumping in, but why would 3 people need special benefits conferred? If two obtain it through marriage, a third is a beneficiary to the original and any addition becomes redundant.
My uncle in Berkeley (yes, that Berkeley) was part of such a union. When the union went south (I did not think it inevitable, but I have never been party to such an arrangement), special court consideration had to be obtained because there were the original 3 parties plus child (DNA testing confirmed my uncle was daddy).
So, the one “staying home” with child was also the “odd man” out, since he was not one of the the married party (um, just to really muck things up, he was the ex-husband). What lessons have been learned from this? The courts are ill prepared for marriages of multiple partners, and I doubt they will be ready for such things anytime soon. But if you wish to crusade on their behalf, you have my blessing…
18 (continued)
“No. Nonononono. Nothing in this State is any more political than the Washington State Bar Association. Just ask Doug Shaffer, the guy the WSBA suspended after he caught The Cadillac Judge with his hand in a client’s pocket. Keep the WSBA the hell out of it.”
The WSBA and Washington Supreme Court took much heat in the Schafer discipline case. It’s true Schafer blew the whistle on a corrupt judge, but Schafer himself was neither the bar’s brightest light, nor a squeaky-clean do-gooder. Read the facts of the case here: In re Discipline of Schafer, 149 Wn.2d 148, 66 P.3d 1036 (2003). http://www.ethicsandlawyering......chafer.pdf
In a nutshell, Schafer was tipped off by a client. It is fundamental that what a lawyer learns from a client in the course of legal representation is confidential and may not be revealed without the client’s consent:
“We cannot tolerate for a moment, neither can the profession, neither can the community, any disloyalty on the part of a lawyer to his client. In all things, he must be true to that trust, or failing it, he must leave the profession.” (Quoting United States v. Costen, 38 f. 24, 24 (C.C.D. Colo. 1889))
Schafer broke this rule.
The facts are slimy. When Schafer’s client, Hamilton, approached Schafer about the crooked bowling alley deal and told Schafer that Anderson was “milking” the estate, Schafer told Hamilton he “did not want to hear about it,” but Schafer, instead of withdrawing from representation, went ahead and set up a corporation to consummate the deal anyway.
Schafer then sat on the information in his possession for three years.
Then Schafer appeared before Judge Anderson representing a different client in an unrelated matter, and Anderson slapped a $1,000 sanction on Schafer for filing a frivolous petition. That very day, Schafer copied the Hoffman estate file, and initiated phone calls to the attorneys involved. Several months later, Schafer at his own request met with his client Hamilton, who warned Schafer to “stop looking for dirt” on Judge Anderson. But Schafer didn’t stop, going so far as to contact the attorney who represented Anderson’s wife in the judge’s own divorce, who tipped off Schafer about the Cadillac. Now Schafer’s client, Hamilton, stepped in and, in a letter terminating Schafer’s employment as Hamilton’s lawyer, warned that Schafer had “no authority to disclose any privileged information, relating to your prior representation of me.” That same day, Hamilton and his new attorney met with Schafer, and emphasized that Schafer was not to disclose any of Hamilton’s confidential communications with Schafer, and threatened to pursue disciplinary action if Schafer did so.
The Washington Supreme Court writes: “Over the next several months, Schafer became obsessed with Judge Anderson. He met with a series of legal and government organizations, and eventually the press, revealing his findings about Hamilton’s and Anderson’s dealings. … Schafer met with the Pierce County prosecuting attorney … [t]wo days later, he contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation ….”
Does this look like the vendetta of an angry man who has it in for a judge who fined him $1,000 for filing a frivolous motion? Does a lawyer who files frivolous motions look like a responsible member of the bar?
Schafer was not innocent. If he was truly the altruistic lawyer dedicated to the public good that he claimed to be, he wouldn’t have waited 3 years to blow the whistle on Judge Anderson. He broke a fundamental rule, and was defiant about it.
The standard penalty for violating client confidences is disbarment. In light of his contribution to the public good, the Washington Supreme Court let him off with a 6-month suspension from the practice of law.
Justice was done.
21
“ps sanders isn’t that well liked by the right…”
The only true statement “righton” has ever made on this blog.
23
“Why are we looking to judges to legalize gay marriage? Isn’t that an issue for the legislature?”
Because judges are the guardians and protectors of our rights, and their role in government as a separate and co-equal branch of government is to keep the legislature from infringing our rights.
35,
yea but there is a narrow line between protection and bench legislation, which why the courts intrusion into legislatoin needs to be carefully considered.
26
“98% of the electorate has no idea who the judges are or their record”
How could they, when judges aren’t allowed to campaign on their record, or on issues, and aren’t even allowed to explain their decisions or correct misinformation about their decisions or judicial record? The judicial canons muzzle judges. So how can voters be expected to know anything about them?
me @ 39
I meant to say “civil liberties,” not “civil rights”
46
“Whether the WSBA is overly political or not, you’re not providing ringing endorsement for them to be choosing our state’s judges.”
Actually, the WSBA does a good job of evaluating judicial candidates, and so does the King County Bar Association. The WSBA has a lot of committees that operate independently of each other (and have different members), and the good folks who handle the judicial recommendations have nothing to do with the idiots (many of whom are now dead) who:
1. Imposed fee price-fixing on their membership until SCOTUS decided it was illegal, and
2. Did nothing about lawyers having sex with clients until a WSBA president was caught having sex with half a dozen of his clients. (He must have been lousy in bed, because they all complained.)
48
“All judges should be selected and appointed by those with a net worth north of a billion dollars. Both original intent and the concept of free speech lead to this conclusion. If anyone questions a judge’s motives, they can answer to me. Even judges have to learn their place. Comment by steve forbes”
Furthermore, people’s votes for president, congress, governor, and the legislator should be counted in proportion to their net worth. — the late H. L. Hunt
54
“there is a narrow line between protection and bench legislation”
Judges are paid to know the difference. For years, rightwingers have complained that liberal judges didn’t know the difference, and perhaps some didn’t; now, we have rightwing judges who don’t know the difference.
marks, no pardon necessary, but you demonstrate my point. Realize that while a lot has been made about financial rights regarding marriage, the real issues have been more along the lines of folks allowing a spouse to be a spouse (such as hospital visitation rights for folks dying of AIDS) and having the courts settle disolution and custody disputes. I really dont think that ‘it would be hard for the courts to settle those disputes’ is a likely counter arguement.
You’ve demonstrated my point there actually, the lack of any official recognition did not in any way prevent those you mentioned from living as spice all along, it only allowed a judge to shirk his duty in resolving a dispute between parties.
Yes, I know one or two of those types of arrangements that have lasted 20 years, and actually the same number of ‘normal’ weddings that have lasted that long. I dont think the arrangement has anything to do with the durability of the marriage, but I could be wrong.
It seems wrong to me in the marriage you mentioned, that your Uncle was somehow given short shrift by the courts simply because the woman involved could only be married to one of them at a time.
E.g., judges who carve out exceptions from the 4th Amendment and FISA from whole cloth.
58
Like the SCOTUS? That eminent domain ruling was pure drival.
61
Actually, it wasn’t, if you read it carefully. It was well crafted and brilliantly thought out drivel.
61 (continued)
That decision makes you wonder if those Republican judges who dominate SCOTUS are smoking pot on the job, doesn’t it?
bill @59
It seems we have common ground on this subject. My uncle described above is my favorite, so perhaps that colors my opinion a bit. His lifestyle choice was a source of consternation for my grandmother, a self-described “liberal democrat”. But he persevered, and has a wonderful child from the arrangement.
But the point is sort of hanging: Why would 3 people need the marriage thingy in order to have a constructive relationship? My uncle says the fact that both of them were married to her (at some point) ruins any chance that either would ever consider marriage again, and would prefer a domestic relationship free of the legal bind. I just wonder if triumvirate relationships are the same. I have trouble enough with my wife. A tertiary responsibility beyond the kids and dog seems, well, tertiary and ridiculous…
sour apple @ 40
By all means, question authority. Question the judicial decisions of any judge you see fit to. Even question the character and political motivations behind those decisions when you have some tangible shred of evidence that they are so motivated. But don’t suggest some underlying political motivation, or nefarious agenda when no inkling of such can be shown to exist. You don’t have to speculate. You can look at the public record of decisions and opinions (sure, I know, its boring and there arent any pictures). You can look at a Judges public disclosure statements. You can even consider the opinions of the attorneys who regularly practice before a judge.
When your neighbor gets a new Lamborghini, do you speculate that she’s a drug dealer? Or do you use your head, and remember that she goes to work every day, coaches soccer, and keeps pretty regular hours. You’d probably remind yourself that entertaining that kind of groundless speculation about one of your neighbors doesn’t strengthen your sense of community.
We live in times when the majority party in Congress has offered to legislate nullification of the judicial branch because too many Americans no longer trust the SCOTUS and how it arrives at decisions. I don’t know about you, but that scares me. I don’t argue that you have to suspend a sense of suspicion about elected officials, but that’s not what this is about. Is our state’s judicial SYSTEM no longer trustworthy? Can citizen’s like yourself, no longer seek redress through the courts, confident that you will be treated fairly? If not, then you should welcome the efforts of Justice Alexander.
At this point, Justice Alexander probably feels like Alan Greenspan. Whatever he says, some self appointed tea leaf reader is going to try to divine some underlying meaning.
lame_catch_phrase@64
We live in times when the majority party in Congress has offered to legislate nullification of the judicial branch because too many Americans no longer trust the SCOTUS and how it arrives at decisions.
WHAT? I do not understand what you said there. Please xplain?
Comment by bill— 1/19/06 @ 5:47 pm
“Realize that while a lot has been made about financial rights regarding marriage, the real issues have been more along the lines of folks allowing a spouse to be a spouse (such as hospital visitation rights for folks dying of AIDS) and having the courts settle disolution and custody disputes.”
You raise a good point. If Terri Schaivo had two husbands, which one would have the right to determine what medical treatment is given to her if they both disagreed? They’d have the same legal standing in the eyes of the court. What breaks the tie?
In addition, would a person have to notify their spouse if they formed a union with another person?
Allowing multiple unions allows potentially inumerable relationship permutations. A person could build quite the union web if they chose to.
I think most gay couples would be satisfied with civil unions if it gave them the same legal standing the heterosexual couples currently enjoy. I doubt they’d want to risk a chance at attaining that status, just to allow multiple unions for one person supported by a tiny minority.
we need to keep our Supremes free of ‘big donations’. What if they have to deal with a case like Google’s?
“Mountain View-based Google has refused to comply with a White House subpoena first issued last summer, prompting U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this week to ask a federal judge in San Jose for an order to hand over the requested records.
The government wants a list all requests entered into Google’s search engine during an unspecified single week — a breakdown that could conceivably span tens of millions of queries. In addition, it seeks 1 million randomly selected Web addresses from various Google databases.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....le_records
Regardless of whether political orientation is heritable or learned, the Left’s passion for gay marriage and abortion should render it extinct inside three generations.
off topic but I wonder why before whenever Osama ‘burped’ the current mis-administration always ‘upped’ the color code for threats. Now he comes out with a taped message and the same mis-administration sees no worry? Help now, impeach the imposter in chief
I think most gay couples would be satisfied with civil unions if it gave them the same legal standing the heterosexual couples currently enjoy. I doubt they’d want to risk a chance at attaining that status, just to allow multiple unions for one person supported by a tiny minority.
Comment by ConservativeFirst 6:44 pm
I don’t know what you’re saying with regards to this “multiple unions” stuff you’re saying, but all the homos I know don’t want some second class, separate-but-equal, back-of-the-bus type shit. They either want the exact same rights as you, or they don’t care about it. That is what I hear.
—–
Roger Rabbit: It’s hard to argue with Sanders’ logic, but his problem is he expects the law to be logical. Mr. Magoo had it right: “The law, sir, is an ass.”
Comment by Roger Rabbit— 1/19/06 @ 4:35 pm
——-
That is so dark of you, RR. The judiciary is supposed to strive to do the right thing, and logic would seem to be central to that.
By “ass” do you mean random? The law does not have an autonomous consciousness or the ability to influence how it is dispensed — it could not “assify” its own behavior. So you mean, what, the people in charge of imposing the law are asses?
Do you mean the system that the people dispensing law work in forces “assiness” on otherwise upstanding people like judges?
Or is it just that the people who are judges are asses?
Let’s give Mr. Magoo (may Jim Backus rest in peace) his due, and assume the law is an ass. Is it an ass out of historical accident — we as inheritors of an anglo-american common law are just unfortunate in the degree of assiness our law exhibits? I can think of numerous assier law systems: my guess is you RR would have been toast in, say, Stalin’s Russia of 1942.
Maybe Mr. Magoo was wrong, RR. Possible?
The al-Qaida leader would like to thank you far left extremists for you passionate support especially Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, and other Democrats who believe we are losing this War. Present Bush just received the best support on the War on Terror from Bin Laden and friends. Folks this Nation is still at War and what you say can have a great impact on how we will win this conflict.Bin Laden still gets his New York Times delivered to his rat hole in the Middle East. Who amoung you are his new paperboy?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10924015/
Polling message
Bin Laden said he was directing his message to the American people after polls showed that “an overwhelming majority of you want the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq but (Bush) opposed that desire.”
A NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll from last month does not support that. Two-thirds of Americans surveyed opposed an immediate withdrawal. But 60 percent believed the United States should reduce its troop levels in Iraq.
Bin Laden also said insurgents were winning the conflict in Iraq and warned that security measures in the West and the United States could not prevent attacks there.
“The proof of that is the explosions you have seen in the capitals of European nations,” he said. “The delay in similar operations happening in America has not been because of failure to break through your security measures. The operations are under preparation, and you will see them in your homes the minute they are through (with preparations), with God’s permission.”
I agree! It is time for Alito! :}
I would be all for not electing judges in this state if you can ensure that no liberals would be appointed to the bench. Since that is the way most liberals get on the court I say let the people vote. This state is too corrupt not to let it go to the people.
GS, I agree with you! It is time for Alito to get a job and stop mooching of the government. He has been a Conservative Hack for his entire career. Whenever he has had the chance to make a decent ruling, he has always sided with R’s, Big Business and Conservative Extremists. It is truly time for him to ‘disappear’ from the political scene. Maybe he can find a nice cushy judgeship in say, Sugarland, TExas, he fits in perfectly there with the disgraced DeLay.
I agree! It is time for Alito! :}
Comment by GS— 1/19/06 @ 9:29 pm
AMEN Folks
71
“Or is it just that the people who are judges are asses?”
I wouldn’t say that, but judicial reasoning and writing isn’t as good as it was 100 years ago, in part because we have so much statutory law now, and what can a judge do with statutory law? When legislatures micromanage, there’s not much scope for judicial brilliance to shine.”
“my guess is you RR would have been toast in, say, Stalin’s Russia of 1942.”
My guess is I would have been a very fast rabbit.
“Maybe Mr. Magoo was wrong, RR. Possible?”
For 30 years, I desperately hoped so, but … I fear not. The law, at times, can be elegant and even soaring, like an eagle; but most of the time, it is a plodding burro that stops when it wants and shits where it wants.
72
“The al-Qaida leader would like to thank you far left extremists for you passionate support especially Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, and other Democrats who believe we are losing this War.”
Keep talking to yourself, Flaky Klaky. Nobody else is listening to the rightwing “the-Democrats-are-terrorists-and-traitors” sludge anymore. Latest polls show a majority of Americans think Bush should be impeached. For fucking up the war against terror, for looting the Treasury, for screwing over Americans. Fuck you, Klake, you America-hating turncoat. Imbeciles like you are Osama’s best asset.
75
“I agree! It is time for Alito! :} Comment by GS— 1/19/06 @ 9:29 pm”
“AMEN Folks Comment by klake— 1/19/06 @ 9:42 pm”
Jerking each other off again, I see. So … if the Washington Supremes come down on the side of gay marriage, are you two gonna tie the knot?
Klake, you America-hating turncoat. Imbeciles like you are Osama’s best asset.
Comment by Roger Rabbit— 1/19/06 @ 9:50 pm
Roger did I hit your hot button? I really did not expect you to be an far left extremists.
82
“did I hit your hot button”
In your wet dreams. I was simply stating a fact.
Cougar
Fact ….or…..Fiction
Fact……
Alito has found a job, on the highest court of this land, for the rest of his given life!
Amen!
Alito in the Supreme court for his lifetime is all but a done deal!
And by the way Hillary’s comment on the “Plantation” in the Senate and Mayor Nagin’s “Chocolate City” are words coming directly from your side. And you call our side insensitave racists? No double standards here? Huh!
@28 When two people of the same gender go to the department of licensing and are denied a *state* granted marriage license, they are being denied a basic constitution protection…. Read Article 1 of the 14th Amendment.
I have read that. No one is denied the right to marry, they are denied to marry someone of the same sex, same as everyone else. This isn’t an equal protection issue.
I just heard back from the SBA. They told me that I needed to be a small business owner in order to qualify for a SBA loan. How dare they?! Under equal protection, shouldn’t everyone qualify for an SBA loan?
63-64
You have got to be kidding. I know you liek being a contrarian, but how in yoru wildest dreams is it a good thing to allow the government to take away someone’s home to build something that provides no public need, but a private economic one?
To give them to a private company to build a shopping mall or a resort, that is just wrong.
That is government thuggery at its worst.
How will you feel when they force you to sell your house to build a Wal-Mart?
Funny how the moonbats never had a problem with “judicial activism” and the current judicial system in Washington State until now.
Just goes to show how hypocritical they (liberals) are.
It’s an issue because the larger and larger amounts of money have begun to be poured into the elections.