Skip to comments.Florida Voters..Know your judges
Posted on 10/28/2006 4:52:53 AM PDT by ThreePuttinDude
Upon receiving my sample ballot for the upcoming election, I noticed in the non-partisan section the names of the Florida Supreme Court Justices up for re-election. What I noticed were names that brought back memories of the 2000 election, and all of the nightmare antics we had to go through due to the state court.
Names to remember:
Justice Fred R. Lewis
Justice Barbara Joan Pariente
Justice Peggy A. Quince
I did that yesterday!
I voted two days ago in Florida and voted to not retain all the judges on the ballot. I know they all will be retained even though many deserve to be stoned in the public square.
I now they will be retained but voted against retention in the hopes that maybe they will feel some pressure to discontinue their judicial social agenda.
I am just flabergasted that more judges are not targeted by disgrunteled folks screwed by their activism.
Who the hell are judges to push social issues to their liking?
Why is it that freaks like sandra day insist we the people not criticize judges?
Too opften Florida judges like those in N.J. are just wrong and in disregard of our constitution.
Right, voted against them all.
R. Fred Lewis, liberal Democrat
Barbara Joan Pariente, liberal Democrat
Peggy A. Quince, liberal Democrat
District Court, Emerson R. Thompson, Jr., liberal Democrat
State Constitution #1, yes
And I voted "No" on all three.
Unfortunately, since I am not a Dem'crat, I cannot vote again on this issue in this election.
But those of you who have not yet voted, you can help out here.
And by the way, a kind word (and vote) for Katherine Harris, who was upholding the law in 2000, while these three were mangling it.
Does anyone have any info on the 4th district court of appeals in west Palm Beach.
Alex Sink is a typical Democrat, in that she will tell any lie in order to get elected. Her TV ads talk about "run away spending" in the Jeb Bush years! And DemoRat Jim Davis says if he were elected governor he "has a plan" to cut property taxes by $1 billion. This is of course total BS. Davis and Sink would be pushing a State income tax in the first 30 seconds if they were elected. They would attempt to turn Florida into another liberal welfare state with higher and higher taxes, huge increase in State government spending, and a resultant decline in business and employment. In short, they want to undo what Jeb Bush has accomplished.
Excellent points. Alex published an invitation to a rally supporting herself first, and her husband back in 2002. It was full of typos, from the candidate touting himself as "the education candidate."
Alex invited women to a Tampa Bay Really, and told us to "Bring all you friends." I'll never forget how hard I laughed when I read it. Rally, I did.
She is the female dog who would not change her name to her husband's last name.
Now SHE! is ussing a MAN's name to cause confusion!
So now we officially know who is the female dog to the female dog in that relationship.
THANKS FOR THE HEADS UP
BUMP TO THE POST!
Bump. Thanks, NautiNurse. That looks like the ballot I cast yesterday. Go Florida Pubbies! No to the Florida Supreme Court Judges. Here's hoping Governor Crist will be naming their replacements in January.
My wife and I already voted NO!!!! Besides that we didnt give a sh-t what the media said and voted for Harris
Harris is far better qualified than Nelson. Nelson doesn't represent the average Floridian. He votes in the Senate as if his constituents were all liberal Democrats. When the Clintonistas say "jump", Nelson says "how high?" Nelson is a pompous, air-head, has-been, blow-hard, good ole boy who thinks he can continue to vote like Kerry and still get re-elected in Florida. Space cadet Nelson will be retired soon.
If I remember these judges are the ones who violated Florida State Statutes by overturning the 2000 presidential election. They also violated Florida Statute and the Florida Constitution when they approved the killing of Terri Schiavo.
I am a Floridian and I will vote for their removal.
I have a question: how come no to the vets reduced homeowners insurance? Also the 'majority vote'. Thanks for your input!
I believe the "majority vote" was put in there because in 2008 there is going to be a DMA put on the ballot. I think this was put on by the trial lawyers.
Also, it has a lot of support because of the fact that PIG PENS are regulated in the FL constitution due to a referendum. Also as FL gets more and more republican, it becomes very likely abortion will make it onto the refrendum question.
It is a two edged sword.
If you want to know your judges - here's an easy way to do just that:
Go to Yahoo (I don't Google) - and search for the names - and I found it's even better if you search with the title of Justice or Judge before the name.
I found out all kinds of information about these people - when they were previously elected or appointed - AND WHO APPOINTED THEM. And .. you can also find out how they ruled on important issues. Most of the time - the person who appointed them will be a well-known Governor or President - and it's a very big clue as to how the judge will lean. Do not trust any judge appointed by democrats.
Of course, there are some exceptions - but it's just another way of being able to judge the judges for yourself.
THEY CAN'T HIDE FROM US ANYMORE!
Respectfully you can not count on that in FL.
In FL you have to be a FL lawyer for 5 years and over 18. You run the pro-left gauntlet of the JQC HOWEVER since the FL is so NON-diverse with so many leftist kooks, it is very very very very very hard to find a conservative who happens to be a lawyer.
The FL is now very big into pushing judicial independence which is just code for imposing "thought crime" controls on judicial candidates.
Last line should read,
"The FL BAR is now...."
Not sure which one you mean when you say "homeowners insurance".
I asssume by "majority vote" you mean #3, on which I voted Yes, because it seems the amendment would make it more difficult to amend the state constitution by requiring 60% of the voters instead of a simple majority. I don't think the consitution should be amended frequently or simply to please special interests (such as "protect the pigs").
You find the conservative lawyers doing things like real estate, commercial litigation, securities work, etc. Oh, and in the Prosecutors Offices.
You usually don't find them on billboards or with a 1-800-ASK-JOEY phone number. :-)
Vote NO on all three bump.
Why are those twerps listed as "non-partisan"?
I didn't remember any of the names (as I didn't live in FL at the time) so I voted against all of them. I don't normally do that, as I normally don't vote if I don't know anything about a candidate, however I remembered 2000, and thought it likely that they were involved.
I voted against Amendment 3. Why should we (the people) take more power away from ourselves and apportion it to the legislature. Yes, our constitutional amendments are often trvial in nature, but they do serve the will of the people. I think one of the great things about our state is that if the general public disagree with the professional politicians, we can overturn them. I would, however, vote for amendment 3 if there were a way for the public to modify STATUTES via referendum as opposed to modifying the state constitution. The legislature had a chance to do this last year. It was a move supported by Dems and opposed by Republicans. In my mind, the best way for the citizen initiative process to work is via statute, and not constitutional amendment. Since that isn't an option, I'll vote NO on 3. BTW, I voted against retaining all three liberal justices.
The admendment process has been usurped by large lobbying groups, pay for lawyers to write the text, pay to fight the challenges, pay for canvassers to get signatures, and pay for political advertizing.
It is not a citizen's initiative anymore. It is a way for activists to lobby without a politician involved.
A citizen group would have to really get a groundswell of support to get ANY thing past the judges, lawyers and then the negative ads from "profssional" activists.
SO IMHO, Yes on 3, and vote like a pirate! (R)
I voted "NO!" on all threeofem!
Any 411 on:
Circuit Judge, 18th Judicial Circuit, Group 20
Patrice J. Pilate or
Charlie G. Crawford
County Court Judge, Group 10
Judith (Judy) Atkin or
William L. (Bill) Powell, Jr.
WHOAH! Rethink Amendment #3, people!
Are we a government of the people, by the people and for the people or a government of the politicians, by the politicians, for the politicians?
Most conservatives would likely want to Vote NO on Amendment #3, if you did it in pencil, you might want to erase. See here for a very lucid argument.
Basically: Amendment #3 keeps government in the hands of the people when the legislature refuses to listen to the populace.
Quoting from the link above:
By requiring that any proposed amendment be approved by 60 percent of the voters, rather than a simple majority, it would certainly make changing the constitution much more difficult. But it would do so by further restricting the only avenue Florida citizens have for initiating changes in law or the constitution that the Legislature has failed to address.
Legislature too often fails to protect the public interest. Instead, special interests hold lawmakers in sway, through political contributions and other incentives, and thwart popular causes.
Critics of the initiative process like to cite the famous pig-crate amendment, but important changes have been made through initiative, for example, requiring full public disclosure by state and county elections officials. The Sunshine Laws.
((The legislators would never have voted to have their actions in full view of the public. It took US to do that. Trying to force this with a super-majority would be virtually impossible.))
No other state requires a supermajority for approving an amendment.
I suggest a NO vote - keep the power in OUR hands instead of theirs. Or at least do a little more research on your own and think it over.
Great thread on the JUDGES !! here is my 2cents worth on this election..
My Tallahassee Voter Guide.. includes all races including the Local Stuff...
You are right. No on 3. In 08 we are going to have a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. I don't want to have to meet the 60% barrier. Majority should be enough. An mark my words, they want Amendment 3 to pass so we cannot pass the ban against gay marriage with just a majority vote.
I don't recall ever seeing advertising by Florida's Supreme Court Justices. Are they even allowed to advertise?
Thanks for your input (#40)
The are allowed to advertise but the language they use is severly limited.
They just did an absurd endorsement from lawyers. Seriously, any jusdge is going to intimidate a lawyer into say "sure you should keep your job" especially when they control conflict appointments.
The FL actually FOUGHT allowing judges to answer more specific questions on their personal beliefs.
Thank you for the information.
I just want to know how they voted on the cases before them. Decisions speak louder than ads.
Judge want merit retention because it is de facto life tenure.
No judges bother with advertising because no judge has ever been "not retained".