The Washington State Supreme Court
Elections are upon us once again. I voted yesterday, and I surely hope that those of you who live in this great State of Washington will join me.
The Secretary of State is predicting only about a 40% turnout for the primary election, but it's important to remember that Judicial elections can be resolved in the primary, so it is important to vote, as those races do not necessarily move forward to the general election.
This year, actually, it is vital to vote because we have two important Supreme Court Justices up for election. Richard Sanders and Jim Johnson. In a strongly Democrat controlled state it is important that the libertarian and conservative points of view are at least given voice, and these two gentlemen do that extremely well. The loss of either of them would inevitably result in even faster growth of government, increases in governmental costs, and reduction in freedom.
I hope that you will join me in voting in this primary election, and I hope that you will mark your ballot for Jim Johnson and Richard Sanders.
I've opinions about all the other races as well, but none of them rise to the importance of these two contests.
Comments
I am not a Washington voter (live in an adjacent state), so what I have to say is just opinion. However, when it comes to judicial elections, I tend to disagree with what you've said, particularly about the conservative. State Supreme Courts have far less to do with the growth of government than legislators, but far more to do with individual freedoms. I don't want a guy who would think consensual BDSM is battery, or refuse to enforce contracts in non-traditional relationships because they are meretricious (both of which have happened in the U.S. during my adult years).
Posted by: cuhulin | August 4, 2010 2:24 PM
We have our primary coming up. I always have a hard time voting for judges unless I have intimate knowledge of their decision making. With many judges up for election, I would have to go through their decision making in cases that they have handled. It is a bit too much. I am afraid that they get in by relying on friends and relatives voting for them.
Posted by: susan's pet | August 4, 2010 4:42 PM
cuhulin,
I think that Supreme Court Justices have a good deal more to do with the size of government than you may think. They set the outer limits of governmental power in each realm of life, so in effect place limits upon the size, scale, and ultimately cost of government.
That said though, I do understand, and do see your point. I don't think though that it is relevant here due to the current composition of our court. We have only the two conservative justices (actually, Sanders is a libertarian) so their opinion on any social issues can not carry sway.
Additionally, I must point out that liberal judges are just as likely to see bdsm as abuse as are conservative judges. Especially if that bdsm is with the woman as bottom.
M
Posted by: Milliscent | August 6, 2010 12:36 PM
Susan's pet,
I agree 100% with your view that it is too hard to select judges and that they are usually elected by their own special interest groups.
They do not campaign on the issues, and making matters even worse here this year, the Secretary of State has not provided a voters guide with their statements due to budget cuts.
Generally we elect judges in the Western States, but I think that is an error, and they should probably be appointed by the Executive and confirmed by the Legislative as they generally are in the Eastern States and Federally.
M
Posted by: Milliscent | August 6, 2010 12:40 PM