Sunday, May 07, 2006

Jay Drick for District Judge

It's time to Pick Jay Drick for District Judge.



Jay's website is up, and I encourage everyone to take a look at it.

Jay's a strict constitutionalist, and that is my number one reason for supporting him. The other major reasons are experience and judicial temperment. In the case of judicial temperment, I've never seen Jay lose his cool in any situation. He's always stayed calm, and that is needed in a judge.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

In this group, Brennan has the experience. She too is always calm and proven! It's great to have a woman on the bench.

RKG said...

What in the world is a "strict constitutionalist?" Define it for me and give me three examples of how being one will make a dimes bit of difference on the Brighton District Court. If that is your "number one" reason to support him then make your case. I have a feeling (and it isn't even as sneaking one) that the phrase is this cycle's code word for "he's a buddy of mine who shows up at the same meetings so he must be okay." Explain yourself.

Anonymous said...

The definition of a strict constitutionalist in my mind means one who will use our constitution to make judicial decisions instead of legislating from the bench.
This has nothing to do with whatever meetings anyone attends or doestn't attend.
Jay knows the law well,and will apply it fairly.

Anonymous said...

What does legislating from the bench actually mean to you?

Anonymous said...

Brennen has what experience exactly? She ran for the bench and was soundly rejected. She was then appointed for her strong left wing, democratic activism by Granholm. Hardly the experience we need on the bench.

Drick is dedicated to the law. Brennan to granholm. Lets pick a real judge.

RKG said...

I'm not going to assume that the definition of a "strict constitutionalist" offered by anonymous (i.e. "...one who will use our constitution to make judicial decisions...")is the definition that our esteemed blogger will offer but I still need to respond. The District Court is, in effect, the "people's court." District Court judges handle traffic tickets, small civil cases, minor criminal offenses and the like. The notion that the decisions a District Court judge will make will have constitutional implications or overtones is based on a misunderstanding of our system and how it operates. I'm afraid that phrases such as "strict constitutionalist" are code words for those who seek to advance a partisan view. Unfortunately, the public will often fall for it because most people don't know the candidates or the Courts. I recall one candidate in another county who printed the phrase "Favors the Death Penalty" on his literature and yard signs - even though Michigan was the first state to ban the death penalty and there would be NO case ever before him that would involve the imposition of a death penalty. He won. And you know what - he proved to be a terrible judge and was not re-elected. Ideology does not make you a good judge. Please, please, please don't let the judicial races devolve into an us versus them issue - it serves no one's interest to elect lousy judges.

Anonymous said...

I simply defined it as I interpreted it.
The fact is that Jay knows the law and will apply it fairly. He will make a great judge.
No "code" implied.

Anonymous said...

It serves no one's interest to have a judge appointed for us because she is your "buddy". We don't want another pretty face, we NEED someone who knows the law, interprets the law, and applies the law. Jay Drick has the experience, the integrity, the temperment, and the trust for this job. We'll elect Jay Drick.

anon said...

Brennan imposes vindictive sentences and penalizes defendants for invoking their rights to jury trial. She also expresses judicial bias by disallowing comments by attorneys that she does not like personally. She has also had a complaint filed against her for judicial impropriety regarding comments she made in open court regarding drinking alcoholic beverages in front of a defendant.