Posted on 08/25/2006 9:06:16 AM PDT by truth49
Calling all Washingtonians! Please vote for conservative, Constitutional judges for the State Supreme Court. Vote for STEVEN Johnson, John Groen, and Jeanette Burrage. Thank you.
>...and Dino Rossi lost.<
Dino Rossi didn't lose, my friend. Dino Rossi was robbed!!!
Following a paid recount that unearthed many "lost" absentee votes for Gregoire, she was declared the winner.
Our state constitution has a provision permitting state courts to throw out an election and order a new one if fraud or incompetence can be proven. For most of our history as a state, the legislature never codified this into law, so over the years the state courts stepped in and created case law. A 1974 court decision set a reasonable bar for invoking this provision. But some time after that, the legislature took California's election contest law, customized it for Washington and passed it into law. This new law required the election challenger to identify actual defective ballots and to tabulate for whom they were cast, thus showing how these ballots caused an incorrect outcome. This was a very high bar indeed. And it clashed with another provision in the state constitution that guaranteed the secrecy of the ballot.
The state Republican Party went into court attempting to resurrect the 1974 precedent -- which would have been fine had the judge been willing to declare the election contest law unconsitutional. The Republicans felt they could make a case that the law was unconstitutional because it effectively voided two provisions of the state constitution.
The Republicans went judge shopping in Chelan County and chose Judge Bridges because of his strict constructionism and judicial conservatism. Had Bridges been a judicial activist, he might have overturned the election contest law, set the clock back to the old precedent and voided the election. But Bridges did not feel it was his place to make such a call. He interpreted the election contest law as written and let the election stand. In his written opinion, he stated that it was up to the people and the legislature to change this law. He clearly was setting this case up for an appeal.
But Rossi chose not to pursue it any further. I now think that was a mistake.
A few months later, the very liberal Democratic ex-state senator and ex-state supreme court justice Phil Talmadge stated publicly that he believed the election contest law was unconstitutional precisely on the grounds raised in court by the Republicans. He said he understood that Judge Bridges would not want to make such a call on his own because this would be something better decided by the state supreme court. What disappointed me was that Rossi and Chris Vance didn't take Talmadge up on his statement. Rossi should have appealed Judge Bridges' decision to the state supreme court with Talmadge himself representing the Republicans before the court. As an ex-state supreme court justice, Talmadge as an advocate would have provided the necessary political cover for the very liberal court to reverse Bridges and would have made Talmadge a hero to Republicans, independents and honest Democrats.
In the aftermath, a lot of Washington State FReepers condemned Bridges' decision because it didn't go their way, referring to him derisively as "Judge Earring". The chief argument made is that courts are supposed to be "courts of equity", influenced by concepts such as right, wrong and justice, not necessarily by what the law says. The first thing they beat out of you at law school is the idea that "right" and "wrong" are relevant in a court of law. What is relevant is the law, how it is written, and how it has been interpreted by precedent.
While Judge Bridges' decision was distasteful for most of us, he did interpret the law as written, not write new law from the bench. For those still upset, I have a little tale with a moral.
In my youth there was a US Supreme Court justice who instructed his clerks to concentrate on right and wrong and the practical effects of decisions. The law itself and its precedents were secondary. Today he is lionized by those Americans who believe it is the job of the courts to overrule the superstitions and backward shiboleths of the American people, protect the defenseless and speak the truth to power.
His name was Earl Warren.
yes...I Know.....I was just wondering if the poster had specific on THEIR grandparent.
That's what I've wondered about... how so many people are (apparently) so blind to the discrepency between the two "stolen" elections. Almost as bad as someone who's against the death penalty for the guilty but for it for the innocent, but we won't go there..
What about Ericson versus Owens?
Boger and Leicourt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.