Yet another Johnson has filed to run for Supreme Court, and our friend Stefan seems a touch perturbed, instantly categorizing his candidacy as “bogus.”
Hmm. I guess only pricks like the BIAW are allowed to slap their Johnsons on the bench, huh Stefan?
I wish we could find at least one more Johnson to file tomorrow. Susan against the three Johnsons. Sounds like a porn movie. Maybe Richard Pope will change his name to Johnson. Of course, I’m sort of expecting him to file against Chambers tomorrow.
Wayne @ 1
I think “Susan takes on the two Johnsons, and the Pope” has great potential as a porn movie title, too :-)
Postman has the scoop……………..
Who’s Stefan? Another showboating, grandstanding, self-promoting wingnut?
I want judges, not politicians, on our courts. If the guy’s running as a single-issue candidate because he didn’t like the court’s ruling in a single case, to me that’s not a good enough reason to elect him. I want to know if he’s smart enough to deal with a complex statutory interpretation case; I want to know if he knows anything about the nuances of real estate law, or negligence law, or defendants’ rights, and the other bread-and-butter daily work of the court. If not, he doesn’t belong there.
Wayne @ 1
I won’t be travelling to Olympia today (i.e. Friday, July 28, 2006).
4
No, he’s a nice man who lives in a big house on the hill above Green Lake Park who raises yummy vegetables for cute furry animals to eat. :D :D :D
6
Well, I’m glad you know your limitations, Richard! I’m not filing against Maleng. (If I did, I’d be a single-issue candidate — and wouldn’t belong there.)
Roger Rabbit @ 5
Michael Johnson is a gay rights activist. He is running against Susan Owens, who voted to strike down DOMA and allow gay marriages.
It would have made more sense for him to run against Gerry Alexander, the only one of the three incumbents up for re-election this year who voted to uphold DOMA and keep the ban on gay marriage. M.Johnson would have been the only anti-DOMA candidate in that race.
Rabbit @ 8
Have you been admitted to the Bar longer than Maleng has?
10
First of all, Richard, that question has no relevance to what we were discussing; and secondly, I’m not gonna give you clues to help you identify me. I’m not young, and I was admitted long ago — much longer ago than you — but that’s all you get.
“Meanwhile, there are rumors that activists in the gay and lesbian community are trying to recruit someone to run against Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, who voted to uphold the state’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). But others say Alexander’s vote in the case could help him in his race against challenger John Groen, a prominent property-rights attorney from Bellevue.”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....rt28m.html
Well, it looks like Michael Johnson just blew $1,413.94 filing on-line for the wrong Washington Supreme Court position!
They have three positions up this year: Pos # 2 — Susan Owens. Pos # 8 — Gerry Alexander. Pos # 9 — Tom Chambers.
Certainly, M.Johnson intended to run against Alexander, who is the second position if only the positions up this year are listed in numerical order. I can see him thinking — Position 1 Owens, Position 2 Alexander, Position 3 Chambers — and then clicking Position 2 on the Secretary of State’s on-line filing form.
If M.Johnson wants to change to run against Alexander, as he must have originally intended, he can certainly withdraw from his race against anti-DOMA Owens. But he will have to pay another $1,413.94 filing fee to run for Position 8 — the position he should have filed for in the first place.
Richard:
You can file on-line now, so you don’t have to go to Olympia. Not that I am trying to give you any ideas, but your non-denial was not necessarily a denial.
I think M. Johnson thought he would do Owens a favor and split the Johnson vote, making it less likely S. Johnson can pull more than 50% in the primary. If one candidate gets more than 50% in the primary, they win.
I don’t think Owens or her campaign was involved in this, I think it was M. Johnson alone. That won’t stop Stefan and his band of right-thinking folk from connecting non-existent dots, of course.
9
Richard, this post perfectly illustrates the vapidity for which you’re famous (sort of) on HorsesAss.
No, it doesn’t make sense for him to run against Alexander. It doesn’t make sense for him to run at all. Now why did you, a lawyer of nearly 15 years’ experience, miss this point?
Supreme Court races should not be about a single case, and certainly should not be driven by political tactics; they are about electing good judges. By “good judges” I mean people with judicial temperament, impartiality, knowledge of the law, and reasoning ability. Alexander is such a judge, and has my vote; Owens is not Alexander’s equal, but is far better than Jim Johnson, who is better than nobody — not even you. (Yes, Richard, if you ran against Jim and were his only opponent, I would vote for you — as the stupider and lesser of evils, to be sure, but that still makes you more desirable than him. At least you don’t pander to anti-Indian bigots.)
We don’t need shallow politicians like Johnson the Indian Fighter on the Supreme Court; at least Sanders, for all his faults, has some depth. He’s been a staunch defender of individual liberties and defendants’ rights; and nobody owns him. I don’t know Michael Johnson; from Postman’s column, he looks like a special interest candidate. Practicing elder and guardianship law is not a judicial qualification; as much of the court’s workload involves criminal law, I prefer to see experience in that area, although I don’t make it a rigid requirement.
On the other side of the DOMA ruling, Bobbe Bridges was an unknown district court judge whose principal asset in running for the state’s highest court was a large personal bank account (she married into the Ben Bridges Jewelry family); district court judges spend most of their time presiding over DUI trials, and know little else. It was unprecedented for someone to leap from a district court seat to the supreme court; a more sensible career ladder is district court to superior court, superior court to court of appeals, court of appeals to supreme court. Bridges has been an embarrassment to the court — for getting arrested for drunk driving while sitting on the state’s highest court.
So here’s another reason why it makes no sense to throw away a jurist of Alexander’s quality based merely on vote counting: The calculus that assumes changing one “anti” vote to a “pro” vote on the court fails to take into account the likelihood that voters will throw Bridges off the court when she next stands for election (or, she may choose not to run). Voters may have temporarily forgotten Bridges’ gaffe, but someone is certain to run against her, and remind them. I will be very, very surprised if Bridges gets another term. So, according to my calculus, the pro-gay marriage forces have to elect two friendly judges, not one, because one of the dissenters probably is going to lose her next election.
(I wish to add here that I’m impressed with what Bridges wrote; her opinion contains a remarkable humanity and compassion that is regrettably absent from most judicial decision-making today.)
If I could ask a genie to grant me one wish, my wish would be that Washington voters set aside their focus on special interests and try to elect “good judges.”
I see Bush has a new neighbor in Crawford Texas. Cindy Sheehan bought 5 acres near his ranch with her late son’s serviceman’s life insurance to use as a base for anti-war protesters. Let’s see the sheriff try to kick her off her own property!
That’s “Bridge” Roger. Not to be a nitpicker, since I think your post otherwise makes some cogent points. However, were you talking about Jim Johnson, the sitting justice (who I’m not particularly fond of) or Stephen Johnson, the veteran conservative GOP legislator who is running against Owens (and whom I’m also not particularly fond of)? Unfortunately, the voters have had a habit of passing over extremely qualified candidates in the primary (Alsdorf and Spitzer being two prime examples), leaving us with less talented judges after the election.
Tim paced manically back and forth in front of the broken picture window. He had found a bottle of cooking sherry in the back of a kitchen cabinet and took regular gulps from that as he muttered, “Goddamn Sam Reed…. Goddamn cheatin’ government. He paused, plunged his hand into his pocket, “The receipt,” he moaned, “where’s the receipt?”
Stephan sat on a filthy bare mattess surrounded by empty wine bottles. He had recovered from his muscatel and hillybilly heroin stupor, removed his jockey shorts and was masturbating wildy to a photo of John Carlson.
Tim shot Stephan a dirty look. “You sick bastard,” he wailed through swollen and bleeding lips, “that’s MY PICTURE!” He hurled the half- empty sherry bottle. It shattered on the wall next to Stephan.
Stephan jerked his head around, his eyes were turgid with madness. He grabbed an empty wind bottle, broke it against the coffee table and lunged across the room at Tim, “You fuckin’ fiend,” he growled, “I’ll fuckin’ kill you this time.”
“Oh no,” I thougt, “not again…”
Rabbit said: “If I could ask a genie to grant me one wish, my wish would be that Washington voters set aside their focus on special interests and try to elect “good judges.”
Commentby Roger Rabbit— 7/28/06@ 1:52 am”
Rabbit: I agree with you. We need good judges. But your moonbat friends whom post on this blog think you’re crazy for pointing out these single issue gay marriage loving liberal imbeciles want bench legislation when ballot legislation goes against their whacky ideas.
I commend you Rabbit for your first great post in a long time, and you wrote it all in one entry.
Now Rabbit you let me down with this post: “I see Bush has a new neighbor in Crawford Texas. Cindy Sheehan bought 5 acres near his ranch with her late son’s serviceman’s life insurance to use as a base for anti-war protesters. Let’s see the sheriff try to kick her off her own property!
Commentby Roger Rabbit— 7/28/06@ 2:05 am”
What does this have to do with Johnsons?
Rabbit @ 14
Actually, Bobbe Bridge was a King County Superior Court Judge before her appointment in early 2000 by Gary Locke:
“Before her appointment to the Supreme Court, Justice Bridge had served as a Judge for King County Superior Court for ten years. During that time, she was the Presiding Judge from February 1998 to January 2000, Assistant Presiding Judge from 1997 to 1998, and the Chief Judge of King County Juvenile Court from 1994 to 1997. She also served as President of the Superior Court Judges’ Association in 1999.
Justice Bridge received her Bachelor’s Degree, magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Washington and earned her MA and Ph.C in Political Science at the University of Michigan. She received her Juris Doctorate from the University of Washington School of Law in 1976, where she was a member of the Law Review and served as its Notes and Comments Editor. After graduating from law school, she joined the law firm of Garvey Schubert and Barer, where she remained until 1990 specializing in the fields of administrative law, litigation, government relations, and domestic relations.”
http://www.courts.wa.gov/appel.....eID=bridge
I don’t think Pope-A-Dope’s strong educational credentials (cough) from the little upstate college in the boonies of New York would exactly win overwhelming respect from his peers.
Perhaps this educational credential would carry a little more weight:
UW Degree Validation
Degrees awarded beginning in 1983 are available through this system. Some degree information prior to 1983 is available but prospective employers should call the Office of the Registrar at (206) 543-8580 to verify degrees prior to 1983 or if there are questions. The names of students who have restricted the release of Directory Information cannot be verified through this system.
Last Name: [POPE] Full Name Required
First Name: {RICHARD] Partial Required
UW Graduate(s)
Richard Lamar Pope – first enrolled fall 1987
JURIS DOCTOR , earned June 14, 1991
ORDER OF THE COIF
WITH HIGHEST HONORS IN LAW
http://sdb.admin.washington.ed.....atedir.asp
This discussion reminds me why I dislike judicial elections. Only a few voters really know the candidates, and it makes it too easy for a special interest group to hijack the election. I like the Missouri Plan for the selection of judges better. It’s not perfect, but it is a reasonable compromise between the options of electing a judge and appointing one.
Rabbit: I agree with you. We need good judges.
Ha! Ha! Let the BIAW choose for us! Ha! Ha!
I doubt that these laws would withstand a 1st Amendment constitutional challenge, but the RCW purports to make same last name filings a Class B Felony punishable by up to 10 years in the state penitentiary:
29A.84.320
Duplicate, nonexistent, untrue names — Penalty.
A person is guilty of a class B felony punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW who files a declaration of candidacy for any public office of:
(1) A nonexistent or fictitious person; or
(2) The name of any person not his or her true name; or
(3) A name similar to that of an incumbent seeking reelection to the same office with intent to confuse and mislead the electors by taking advantage of the public reputation of the incumbent; or
(4) A surname similar to one who has already filed for the same office, and whose political reputation is widely known, with intent to confuse and mislead the electors by capitalizing on the public reputation of the candidate who had previously filed.
29A.84.270
Duplication of names — Conspiracy — Criminal and civil liability.
Any person who with intent to mislead or confuse the electors conspires with another person who has a surname similar to an incumbent seeking reelection to the same office, or to an opponent for the same office whose political reputation has been well established, by persuading such other person to file for such office with no intention of being elected, but to defeat the incumbent or the well known opponent, is guilty of a class B felony punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW. In addition, all conspirators are subject to a suit for civil damages, the amount of which may not exceed the salary that the injured person would have received had he or she been elected or reelected.
No one can say what is in Mr. M. Johnson’s heart and mind.
We can all make reasonable guesses.
No one is going to prosecute under that statute, Mr. Pope; let’s be real.
Regardless of his motives, I applaud Mr. M. Johnson. Steve Johnson would be an activist conservative judge, beholden to narrow special interests. His record in the Senate proves the point. Anything that can legally be done to make it less likely that Steve Johnson is elected to the court should be done, IMO.
Incumbent Justice Owens is far preferable.
Right you are, Art Vandelay. The key point though is that Stephen Johnson is NOT widely known. This is a state wide race and state wide he is known by less than 2% of voters. The BIAW and their partners on the right are vexed as a result of the million bucks they had planned to spend selling the name Johnson and the fact the value of every dollar they spend was just cut in half. Don’t be sad. Be glad. It just got harder to buy a judges seat.
Maybe the BIAW should have picked someone with a less common name than “Johnson”.
A judicial candidate who permits himself to be bought, like John Groen and Stephen Johnson, lacks the integrity and objectivity which a judge requires to sit on the bench. Supreme Court justices should be the best that the legal profession has to offer; these two guys do not come close. They are political hacks. The politicization of the Supreme Court which the BIAW seeks is despicable. Of course, the right wing has long sought to weaken the judiciary as the right wing does not believe in the separation of powers, but only in a strong executive. Politicizing the bench will undermine public respect for the judiciary, a result for which the right wing slobbers. Why do these fuckers have so little regard for the checks and balances that are at the heart of our constitutional democracy?
Don’t blame me. I have only provided the text of the same name RCW’s — along with my personal opinion that they would almost certainly be struck down as unconstitutional.
Well, mabe this “bogus” Johnson will at least have the guts to participate in the bar association’s judicial candidate evaluation program.
I think the reason Stefan got so pissy about another Johnson getting in this race is actually an acknowledgment of the only thing Stephen Johnson has going for him: his last name (well, plus a bunch of special interest cash)
The interesting thing about this is that the Republican’s apparently believe that their voters can not tell one Johnson from another.
It really shows you that the Republican Elite does not think much of their voters.
Speaking of “special interest cash”………..
Why is Gregoire asking people to donate 20,000.00 to a PAC for Justice Owen????? That’s a lot of cash for one person to donate – talk about Justice for Sale!
Agreed, sgmmac. Electing judges is absurd.
So let’s encourage an amendment to the state constitution that allows the governor to nominate and the state senate to confirm supreme court justices. Just like at the federal level.
-Art Vandelay
Vandelay Industries
16
“That’s ‘Bridge’ Roger.” Commentby wayne— 7/28/06@ 2:35 am
A mere technicality of the sort that busy lawyers like me don’t overly concern themselves with, when I’ve got Mrs. Rabbit breathing down my neck.
16
I was talking about Jim Johnson, who was Slade Gorton’s point man for opposing the Indians on virtually everything (but especially treaty fishing rights) during Johnson’s AGO career.
And then later Johnson went into private practice and whipped out more anti-Indian fervor.
18
“Rabbit: I agree with you. We need good judges. But your moonbat friends whom post on this blog think you’re crazy for pointing out these single issue gay marriage loving liberal imbeciles want bench legislation when ballot legislation goes against their whacky ideas. I commend you Rabbit for your first great post in a long time, and you wrote it all in one entry.” Commentby Mike Webb Sucks— 7/28/06@ 7:07 am
I’ve never said liberals get it right all the time. They don’t. The difference between us and you guys is, we’re willing to criticize our own side when warranted, and we don’t believe our side is always right.
18
As for what other liberals on this blog think of my comment about electing jujdges, you should let them speak for themselves. So far, none have criticized me.
34
Why don’t you go live in a state where politicians appoint judges if you don’t like our judges. This is Washington. We not only elect our judges here, we also elect our politicians (as opposed to Florida and Ohio), and even vote on which laws we want.
Hey Richard — for a guy who did so well in law school, how did you manage to turn out such a miserable failure?
Roger,
Can you please go down to King County Jail and get me a copy of Michael Johnson’s booking photograph?
Looks like Supreme Court candidate Michael Leonard Johnson (DOB: 03/31/1960, WSBA # 28172, Admitted 10/13/1998) has some recent “criminal” experience.
Johnson was arrested for theft by the Seattle Police Department in the early morning hours of September 16, 2005 and booked into the King County Jail. He was released on his own recognizance about nine hours later, and charged with theft in Seattle Municipal Court No. 475995.
Johnson hired a lawyer, and worked out a pre-trial diversion agreement on October 17, 2005 with the Seattle City Attorney. This included making restitution of the $16.50 which was the subject of the criminal charges, doing eight hours of community service, attending three sobriety meetings per week (i.e. AA or similar groups), completing an alcohol/drug information school, and no more criminal charges for the next three months.
Johnson paid the $16.50 restitution on October 17, 2005. Johnson performed the 8 hours of community service for the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Community Center on Pike Street in Seattle in January 2006. Johnson attend the alcohol/drug information school at Alternatives on Eastlake Avenue in Seattle on December 31, 2005.
As a result of this pre-trial diversion, the theft charges against Johnson were dismissed with prejudice on January 13, 2006.
Obviously, this sort of dismissal does not mean that Johnson didn’t commit the theft that he was charged with. In his pre-trial diversion agreement of October 17, 2005, Johnson waived his right to a jury trial or any sort of trial whatsoever. Had Johnson failed to comply with the pre-trial diversion agreement, the judge would have determined guilt or innocence entirely based on the police report — which would have almost certainly resulted in a conviction.
A Proud Moonbat wrote: “A judicial candidate who permits himself to be bought, like John Groen and Stephen Johnson, lacks the integrity and objectivity which a judge requires to sit on the bench. Supreme Court justices should be the best that the legal profession has to offer; these two guys do not come close. They are political hacks. The politicization of the Supreme Court which the BIAW seeks is despicable. Of course, the right wing has long sought to weaken the judiciary as the right wing does not believe in the separation of powers, but only in a strong executive. Politicizing the bench will undermine public respect for the judiciary, a result for which the right wing slobbers. Why do these fuckers have so little regard for the checks and balances that are at the heart of our constitutional democracy?
Commentby proud leftist— 7/28/06@ 11:16 am
Proud Lefty: reread post #18. It explains who you are, which, you proved to all of us above! You all don’t believe in separation of powers. When you and your moonbat friends don’t get your way through the legislative process you want moonbat liberal judges to create laws for your side.
Rabbit: No lefty will disagree with you because I pointed this out. Their folly is what I wrote in #18, legislation from the bench. Why else do you think skinny wrote this:
http://www.horsesass.org/my-co.....ent-472401
aexia wrote this
http://www.horsesass.org/my-co.....ent-472420
jamie wrote this:
http://www.horsesass.org/my-co.....ent-472449
typical crap from LeftMyTurdInHisBehind:
http://www.horsesass.org/my-co.....ent-472455
John:
http://www.horsesass.org/my-co.....ent-472505
3q5WwOyvIJ xuPGQcACtbUTC bUE7JDm4u9X
lfk6oAdJItO ZWte2CUd7AsH eysKOMWBux
really now–anyone who considers this bogus candidacy ethical raise your hand. If conservatives had done the same thing to a liberal judicial candidate would you really be thinking it wasn’t dirty tricks? Shame on the participants of this charade. The accusation that liberals play dirty continues to collect support.
The fake Johnson apparently has an arrest record for theft. There is a law against trying to confuse the voters with a fake candidate with similar name. Johnson is not raising any money or collecting any endorsements. per the KCJ. Anyone still going to say that he’s NOT a bogus candidate???
l5ptmP6d1jnBkI 1eZo6PCv2z5GRv vMkVa6d4tv
QTRCrMsTVo09BH HbR9Y2w8mokt7 MHpetVdvfUIJ
sdEfYXdYkbr SMyymr4xlt FF2dcjgWsY
9AR2vEyaDfbeH WoLtkaZGpHtQb W0R0ytc642