1. Mr. Ward reveals his strong political bias in this piece. His sole test for impartiality is "do I agree with the judge".

Ward is also a leader in FairPAC.

In four years Justice Jim Johnson will face reelection, will Mr. Ward support Johnson to demonstrate his commitment to judicial independence? I write with some certainty: NO.

Ward also fails to address the real facts of judicial activism, in cases such as Andress, Hangartner and Miller.

In Andress EVERY REPUBLICAN and EVERY DEMOCRAT in both the House and Senate voted to reenact the felony murder statute after the court struck the measure down, based on their claim that when the legislature wrote "any felony" they did not mean assault and murder. Obviously the legislature disagreed with the court.

Judicial activism is real and a genuine threat to our civil liberties.

Mr. Ward has placed a thin veneer of impartiality over his intense political bias.

At the end of the day Susan Owens is the least qualified member of the state Supreme Court. So unqualified in fact that her election in 2000 spurred a serious drive to eliminate judicial elections.

Posted by: Alex Hays -- Executive Director Constitutional Law PAC on July 11, 2006 03:50 PM

2. Just like the old saw about "First we'll give him a fair trial, and then we'll hang him!" liberals truly believe that they are being "independent" and "impartial" when they say that they review all the candidates (and then vote for the liberal ones). When the outcome is so predictable, why bother with the pretense of the former?

Posted by: alphabet soup on July 11, 2006 03:57 PM

3. On the left, it's fair as long as they agree with the outcome, otherwise they scream for fairness and balance. For example, the left does not like that fact that conservative talk radio has risen over the last 20 years. So now they moan and talk of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.

It's the same subjectivism they apply to the economy, to race, to mass transit, to big business, education, etc.

It's OK, only if they agree.

Subjectivist Progressives are the New Marxists

Posted by: Jeff B. on July 11, 2006 04:40 PM

4. alexander is . . . slowing down . . . . . mentally

Posted by: Guelphasia on July 11, 2006 05:19 PM

5. "Subjectivist Progressives are the New Marxists"

Actually Jeff B. they are "old" Marxists now since many of them grew up in the '60's.

Great post, I couldn't agree more.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on July 11, 2006 05:25 PM

6. Mr. Ward is certainly entitled to his opinion, hypocritical though it may be, but he should at least get his facts straight. In his attack on BIAW he declares that, "Just prior to the new campaign-finance laws that took effect this June, BIAW dumped $100,000 into another state Supreme Court campaign." This statement is not only misleading, it's an OUTRIGHT, BOLD FACE LIED.

Had Mr. Ward bothered to check PDC reports, he would have discovered that BIAW contributed ZERO. BIAW did not send one cent to any Supreme Court candidate before the deadline. And contrary to "speculation" by Gerry Alexander's campaign, BIAW leaders never solicited one BIAW member for money either. A handful of individuals who happen to be involved in the construction industry made substantial contributions--because they are fed up with the current Court. One of these individuals confirmed to the Times that he never received any request from BIAW for such a contribution. Apparently speculation holds more weight than the facts to the Times.

When I pointed this out to the Times opinions/column editor, he noted that while he understands my point, he can also can see where Mr. Ward would use industry, affiliates and BIAW more broadly, or interchangeably. (!!!) So apparently the actions of any one of the 50,000 registered contractors in Washington State can understandably be attributed to BIAW, because we're all interchangeable. What a joke. He then went on to pose the question whether "the building industry" skirted the spirit of the new laws.

By the way, how is it skirting the law if you abide by the law?????? So what if large contributions were made before the deadeline--that's what a deadline is for, isn't it? What would have been the appropriate length of time before the deadline for one to make a donation without ignoring the "spirit" of the law? If lawmakers wanted the limits to go into effect immediately, they should have attached an emergency clause to the legislation. So what if the bill didn't really address an emergency? We all know the legislature has no problem tacking an emergency clause onto any other bill that really isn't an emergency.

Posted by: Erin Shannon, BIAW on July 11, 2006 05:26 PM

7. They always deceive with labels.
"Independent judiciary" is code for "liberal."

They actually BELIEVE that a liberal judge is by definition "independent."
Hah!

Posted by: Misty on July 11, 2006 05:48 PM

8. I believe that most of them especially the Independent Judiciary are RDDB's (Red Diaper Doper Babies).

So how do you think the State Supremes will come down on Gay Marriage - they have had this to kick around since beginning of the year. Will they render a verdict before November ? or kick it back the State Legislature ? The probable answer to the when is NO - they don't want to expose themselves as the RDDB's that a majority of them are. They may go ahead and boot it back, but they are no doubt sticking their fingers in the air and see which way the political winds are blowing - Independent my A__ !

Posted by: KS on July 11, 2006 07:35 PM

9. The problem with the lines of argument brought up by previous posters here is that it assumes Liberals think they are liberal. Most do not. Because they reside in a virtual echo chamber, they have come to believe that they represent moderate values. The define their reality not based on the aggregate of the American population but on the aggregate of the liberal population with whom they interact. This results in two things. One, that they represent moderate values, and two that those who are to the right of them must be "extreme right wing fundamentalists" (allowing them the justification for demonizing more than half the country.)

Imagine our political spectrum as a standard 12 inch ruler with liberals tending toward the 0 and 1 inch marks, and conservatives tending toward the 12 and 11 inch marks. Liberals will tend to see the ruler as 6, maybe 7 inches long with them firsly entrenched at the 3 inch mark. Everything they see and hear confirms thier position that the only resonable people will fall somewhere between 0 and 7 inches. Conservatives don't even measure on the ruler. It is why they cannot comprehend our point of view and are quick to condemn, marginalize and dismiss anyone to the right of the 7 inch line.

Basically, Liberals measure the world with a short ruler and that is why they are constantly confused about the state of American politics and how someone like Reagan or Bush could ever get elected, why inititives continue to be passed by the people and why the LA Times' subscription rates and CNN and MSNBC viewerships are declining hand over fist.

Posted by: Eyago on July 11, 2006 07:49 PM

10. What these nine justices likely will do is wait to come out with the "gay marriage" opinion until right after the election, but before any new justices take their seats.

The incumbents probably have it figured that not releasing that opinion before the election will give the political advantage to Owens/Alexander. No way will this lot let Johnson/Groen take seats on the bench and perhaps then be the deciding votes on whether DOMA is upheld.

The majority of the nine up there now like the status quo, because they can cover each other and not worry about case law precedent getting in the way of the outcomes they want to engineer. For Ron Ward to say in his article they respect citizens' constitutional rights either belies his ignorance or evidences his duplicity.

Posted by: observer on July 11, 2006 09:16 PM

11. These libs are so comical that I'd laugh if I could only stop crying!

Good posts Alex and Erin. Keep up the good work my friends.

Posted by: Geoff Morse on July 11, 2006 09:35 PM

12. Look at how libs view Fox news. Fox hires lots of libs for commentary like Juan Williams and A. Colmes, etc. So you hear both sides of an issue. But that gets ignored. Libs call CNN "balanced." But who has the balance? You'll hear lib commentary on Fox, but where is it at CNN??

Posted by: Misty on July 11, 2006 11:46 PM

13. "Moderate coalition" is secret code for "no conservatives will be allowed". The mainstream media is quick to label conservative functions, but never apply the L-label. It's always a "moderate" or "diverse" group, gathering, committee, etc. I don't recall the MSM repeatedly referring to the Unibomber as a leftwing nutjob (which he was). But the Clintons were victims of a "vast right wing conspiracy".

There are too many loony judges who feel sorry for the criminal. This is why prisons have cable TV, free college courses, workout rooms, counseling resources, and other nifty benefits. Hey, Judge Clueless! These people broke the law and are supposed to be punished! If you did your job, citizens wouldn't have to put initiatives on the ballot to lock up the violent criminals and sex offenders for a very, very long time.

Ward's last paragraph is especially humourous. I don't know what airless room he has been locked in, but to say judges don't decide based on their owns whims and prejudices is not true. Anyone remember Judge Rose Bird?

Posted by: Burdabee on July 12, 2006 12:24 AM

14. As stated before, it's hard to believe these people actually believe what they are writing. In their mind, the labor unions, environmental groups, trial lawyer associations, etc do not constitute "special interest" groups because of course they agree with their cause. Basically, everything they agree with is the "center", and therefore those positions are what is labeled "moderate", "fair", "independent", etc.

Posted by: Palouse on July 12, 2006 08:04 AM

15. Observer:

One correction to your point: the DOMA case will be decided by the current members of the court regardless of when the decsion is announced.

Because this is uique to the judiciary let me restate this: the judge who hears a case decides the case; even if the decsion is announced after they've left the bench. You'll note that Faith Ireland still shows up on a few opinions still, though she's been off the court for over a year.

Hope this clarifies things.

Posted by: Alex Hays -- Exective Director, Constitutional Law PAC on July 12, 2006 09:10 AM

16. My interest in the election process applied to judges is somewhat more than casual becasue I have practiced law in Washington State since 1958. Until recently, the amount of relevant information about judicial candidates available to voters has been limited and sometimes biased.
Judicial candidates and sitting judges maybe non-partisan but they are anything but apolitical. There are polls such as those by the League of Women's Voters and various bar associations that indicate what those polled think of the general qualifications of the candidates. There is the self-serving information furnished by candidates in the Voters Pamphlet that does identify some of those who endorsed the candidates. Also who and how much contributers give can be determined with a little effort.
What is missing is detailed information about the education and employment experience of candidates. There is no information readily available about the nature and quality of the decisions and judgments by encumbants, and in case of trial judges their record on appealed deicisions. If a judge is an "activist" or otherwise unqualified, the voters need to know the facts that prove it.
It is highly desireable that all judicial encumbants run upon their judicial records and that non-encumbants disclose their views upon the cases decided by their opponents when they disagree with the results. This information cannot be disseminated unless cadidates raise enough money to communicate their message to voters.
Remember that many judges start their careers by political appointment rather than by election. Thus, the vast majority of sitting judges were appointed by Democrat Governors. So much for non-partisanship.

Posted by: Paddy on July 12, 2006 01:20 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?