Again, forgive my cynicism, but considering the Seattle Times editorial board’s track record of transparently passing off Frank Blethen’s narrow partisan agenda as the public interest, I instantly assumed the worst when I read today’s headline: “Watch carefully as Justice is named.”
And I wasn’t disappointed. Or, uh, I was disappointed. Um… you know what I mean.
The Times argues that the public should carefully watch Gov. Chris Gregoire as she appoints a replacement for retiring Justice Bobbe Bridge, and while the unsigned editorial offers no names, it does “have some thoughts on qualifications.”
- It would be good to add to the diversity of experience on the court, which has a former appellate judge (Gerry Alexander), tribal judge (Susan Owens), special prosecutor for child abuse cases (Barbara Madsen), specialists in voter initiatives (Jim Johnson) and bankruptcy and collections (Mary Fairhurst) and several trial attorneys (Charles Johnson, Richard Sanders, Tom Chambers). What it does not have is someone with major experience as a criminal prosecutor.
- It would be very good to have more geographic diversity. The court is all from west of the mountains. Its gender diversity is good, but its ethnic diversity is not.
- It is essential the appointee be willing to discuss his or her judicial philosophy. Some candidates have declared it is improper to talk about such things. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled it is all right, and we believe the voters need to know, so candidates for the court should speak their mind.
Uh-huh.
Let’s just be brutally honest. Quite simply, this editorial clearly assumes that its readers are a bunch of fucking morons.
Huh… let’s see… the new justice should be a criminal prosecutor from east of the mountains. Oh, how coy. How clever. You mean… a Republican.
And while they “offer no names,” the qualifications the Times lays out are clearly designed to eliminate all of the top names I’ve heard being bandied about by Olympia insiders. In fact, it is fair to speculate that the editorial is specifically aimed at Jenny Durkan, a prominent Democrat and close friend and advisor to Gov. Gregoire. Durkan is probably best known to Times readers as the kick-ass attorney who humiliated Dino Rossi’s lawyers in that Wenatchee courtroom. Durkan is one of the most highly respected attorneys in the state, and I’m guessing the Times is guessing that the appointment is hers for the asking… if she’s willing to give up her lucrative private practice.
To dismiss this editorial as sophistry is to give the anonymous writer too much credit. It is bullshit. Ridiculous, illogical bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit that totally disrespects the intelligence of the reader.
We need a criminal prosecutor on the bench? Why? If the argument is that we need somebody experienced in criminal law, why not a trial judge or criminal defense attorney? What’s the problem? Is Washington soft on crime? Don’t we lock up enough of our citizens? The Supreme Court doesn’t rule on evidence, it rules on points of law, an exercise whose primary requisite is constitutional scholarship and a sharp legal mind. That skill-set doesn’t exclude a criminal prosecutor, but it doesn’t particularly recommend one.
And the Times laughably argues for more diversity (other than gender) at the same time slamming the court for failing to block Seattle Schools’ racial tiebreaker? What’s up with that?
No, the Times didn’t put forth its “thoughts on qualifications” in pursuit of a qualified jurist, but rather a conservative one. What the Times wants is a court that will toss out the estate tax, legalize dog shooting and bust up organized labor. Let’s face it, Frank Blethen’s personal Hell would be a unionized Heaven.
Washington voters elected Chris Gregoire governor, presumably because we thought she was the candidate who best reflected our values. And Gov. Gregoire should follow suit, appointing the best qualified justice who best reflects her values. That’s what executives do. That’s what we expect of them.
That’s what Gov. Gregoire will do, and the Times knows it.
When the Times lays out a set of narrow qualifications, and then writes that “Gregoire needs to choose a candidate who can be defended,” what they are really saying is that she needs to choose a candidate who can be defended against attack from the Times.
Whoever the appointee is, he or she should consider today’s Times editorial as the opening salvo in their 2008 election campaign.
It would look bad, but I think that judge in Wenatchee would be a fine appointee :)
It also assumes that their readers are morons in another way: Perhaps there aren’t the
conservativesEastern Washington prosecutors because the people who elected them in the first damn place didn’t wantconservativeEastern Washington prosecutors as our justices. Maybe we were smart enough to realize that we should have well qualified people notideologicallygeographically and prosecution minded justices.Our liberal-leaning judiciary is already feeling the pinch from the right . . . thus their ruling on gay marriage.
Appointing Durkan would look bad, too. She’s a fine and capable lawyer, and no doubt would make an excellent justice, but she’s a lawyer for the Democratic Party. Too much partisan identification there. The public expects judges to be neutral and impartial, so a lawyer with a high partisan identification looks like, well, a partisan appointment.
The logical appointee would be an outstanding judge from the lower courts. Many of our superior and appeals court judges began their careers as prosecutors. While criminal experience is not a requirement to enter a judicial career, it’s a common career path. And prior judicial experience is something you naturally expect someone to have when choosing supreme court justices.
Gov. Gregoire has the opportunity to make an outstanding appointment. There are many good judges to choose from. And there is no need for her to either toe the Seattle Times’ line or reach into the ranks of party loyalists to do it. Both approaches should be rejected in favor of choosing someone the public will perceive as a nonpartisan and impartial jurist well schooled in the law and intellectually capable of resolving the most challenging issues that come before our state’s highest court.
No, not you, Richard. You mean well, but I think you’re better suited for the port commission, county council, or dog pound.
Well, since Richard’s now a Democrat, I doubt appointing him would appease Mr. Blethen. Dale Foreman, perhaps?
Roger @4,
Oh, you mean impartial judges like Richard Sanders and Jim Johnson? Yeah, it’s okay to have BIAW or Tim Eyman attorneys on the bench, but not a Democratic attorney.
Ok, it’s been a while since I last travelled to Eastern Washington. Do they have races over there that we don’t have on this side of the mountains?
Regardless, we have a few lawyers around here. Perhaps someone could suggest a Tri-Cities or Spokane judge or lawyer with some judicial experience that would be a good addition to the Supreme Court.
And Gov. Gregoire should follow suit, appointing the best qualified justice who best reflects her values. That’s what executives do. That’s what we expect of them.
Should a vacancy open up in the US Supreme Court at the end of the summer, should George Bush appoint a justice that best reflects his values?
I don’t always agree with you Horsey, but this time you hit the nail on the head. Heaven is a union shop, and that’s precisely why Frank Blethen will not be welcome there!
The Seattle Times is horribly biased, both in their editorial page and (to a lesser extent) in their news reporting.
For example, they did not have any story whatsoever about the King County Republican Central Committee being fined $40,000 for improper PDC reporting. The only thing that ever appeared was on David Postman’s blog, which has a far more limited internet readership than the news sections, and nothing at all in their printed editions. On the other hand, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer wrote several stories about this.
When it comes to alleged PDC violations, the Seattle Times is horribly biased against Democrats. For example, Bill Sherman filed all of his reports on time, and reported all of his contributions and expenditures timely when he ran for state representative last year. But he made a data input error on his final report, that made it look like his campaign ended up $36,000 in the hole. No real violation or scandal here, but it resulted in two stories in the Seattle Times (so far) in writing about Sherman.
Bob Ferguson DID make some mistakes in his PDC reporting — no doubt about it. It was appropriate for the Seattle Times to write about them — which it did. But the Seattle Times completely ignoring the much more serious violations of the King County GOP.
By the way, Jane Hague has committed PDC violations much more serious than Bob Ferguson — including late reporting of a much larger amount of contributions than Ferguson reported late. I seriously doubt the Seattle Times will ever devote a column inch to this.
SeattleR @8,
But that’s exactly what George Bush has done, and will do. Why should we expect anything different of Gov. Gregoire? Why should she appoint an Eastern Washington judicial conservative, just to appease the Times’ notion of diversity?
President Bush appoints Justices who reflect his values. It’s one of the reasons why the 2008 election is so important (assuming Justices Stevens and Ginsburg live to see it)… we’re already a justice away from overturning Roe and kissing habeas corpus goodbye.
“Should a vacancy open up in the US Supreme Court at the end of the summer, should George Bush appoint a justice that best reflects his values?”
This nails an insidious meme. Right-wingers are supposed to push their political ‘values’ upon us through every means they can grab, but we liberals are supposed to make nice and compromise our values. (I put the former ‘values’ in quotes because I’ve seen little evidence, via their actions, to show that right-wingers actually believe anything they say.) George Bush, even if he did win the 2000 elections, did so by a slimmer margin than Gov. Gregoire did in 2004. In 2004, Bush won re-election by the slimmest margin of any Presidential incumbent. Yet, he has acted as if massive landslides had granted him Mandates of Heaven. He only even pretends to have compromised when such pretense gives him an excuse to attack someone. Local Republicans have watched him do this for six years, never objecting, and now they want to bully Gov. Gregoire into compromise with the very people who rejected her. Too bad. If Republicans want to play “to the winner go the spoils”, let’s play that way. (We’ll confine our takings to what is ethical and legal, unlike their lootings and un-Constitutional over-reaches.) Judicial power is very potent, and should not go to people who oppose our values.
Oh, BTW, Times’ editorial writer: Attorney General Gregoire was our state’s top prosecutor. I think we can trust her to know if our Supreme Court needs one.
@11 Goldy
Why should Gregoire behave better than Bush? Isn’t that a question with an obvious answer?
My guess is that Gov. Gregoire will appoint Mary Kay Becker to Bridge’s seat. She has served on the Washington State Court of Appeals for over a decade. In 2004, Becker ran for the State Supreme Court and narrowly lost to Jim Johnson, who raised a great deal more money than her. At the time, she was endorsed by the State Labor Council, Women’s Political Caucus, and Washington Conservation Voters.
@14
Mary Kay Becker wouldn’t be a surprising pick, but the guy who should really get the nod is former King County Judge Robert Alsdorf, who lost to Becker in the primary for the Supreme Court that same year. Alsdorf was a great judge in KC Superior Court and is extremely smart (Yale grad, spent some time at the Civil Rights Division of DOJ, many lectures/publications). We’d be lucky to have him on the state Supreme Court, if he’s still interested.
(Yes, I voted for him last time. No, I’m not working for him now.)
http://www.dwt.com/lawdir/atto.....Robert.cfm
@6 Goldy, I didn’t say that and you know it! My point is Gregoire doesn’t need to appoint a partisan. It’s sufficient that whoever is appointed isn’t a rightwing partisan. But, to be fair to Sanders, he is neither owned by the BIAW nor a GOP lackey. Sanders is very independent, a libertarian with eclectic views who tends to side with the property-rights crowd on land use issues but is also one of the court’s most zealous champions of civil liberties. He’s the kind of judge who keeps state bureaucrats from locking up mentally ill people and throwing away the key without due process. Jim Johnson is a different story. Not only is he owned lock, stock, and barrel by the BIAW, he’s also a Slade Gorton protege who built is career in the attorney general’s office on Indian-baiting. He’s a despicable and corrosive presence on our state’s legal scene.
As 4, 6, and 16 demonstrate, Goldy and Roger Rabbit not only aren’t the same person but sometimes disagree. Not only that, I’m posting here on HA while Goldy is talking on the ray-dee-oh!!! Another Xmasghost theory blown to hell.
@8 It’s a different question because Gregoire’s values are sound, Chimpface’s are not.
@9 That’s one of the reasons, but not the only one. The Mother Rabbit Spirit told me so.
@11 She shouldn’t appoint an eastern Washington conservative to satisfy the Seattle Times. The Seattle Times should bend over and kiss her behind.
@12 I agree with you 100% except for appointing judges. As a lawyer, I don’t want our courts littered with partisan, I want impartial and nonpolitical judges.
And please understand that to a winger, an impartial and nonpolitical judge is just as unacceptable as a partisan liberal judge, so you’re still kicking them in the teeth by appointing one.
She should appoint the best damn candidate and tell everybody to buzz off. Including me.
Bleep the regional or political crap.
Eye-horse’s-ass-man and the rest of the Republicans are going to be mad anyway, so why bother?
We stopped reading the Spokane Times over a year ago.
We need a criminal prosecutor on the bench? Why? If the argument is that we need somebody experienced in criminal law, why not a trial judge or criminal defense attorney? What’s the problem?
The problem is that the State Supreme Court has made terrible decision after terrible decision when it comes to criminal law. I’d argue a big reason for that is because there is no one on the State Supreme Court with prosecutorial experience. Gregoire used to be essentially the State’s top prosecutor. It’s entirely reasonable to ask her to appoint somebody for the court who has that type of experience. Is it fair to the State in criminal cases that you’re dealing with a court where the deck is almost completely stacked against you?
Putting somebody with prosecutorial experience on there is about fairness. I don’t often agree with the Times editorial page, but they’re dead right about needing somebody on the Supreme Court who’s been a prosecutor. Do they need to be from Eastern Washington? No.
How about Jim West? He’s from Spokane, and I think he’s available.