Tuesday, July 11, 2006

The new judicial questionaire

The Argus just wrote a story on the questionaire we issued last Thursday



The Livingston County Republican Party still wants to know the party affiliation and political activity of local judicial candidates, even though the races are designated nonpartisan by the state.


Who issued the survey? Republicans. Of course we want to know the party affiliation and political activity of the candidates. That's our job. I don't even see where this is even controversial. We are a political party in a 63% GOP county, where judicial activism is a major issue.

As for "nonpartisan", judges are human. They have their biases as lawyers and bring them to their court. Theresa Brennan is still the Emily's List pro-abortion democrat. She's still the war protestor. She's still the individual who gave thousands to extremist and incompetent Stabenow who fillibusters Bush's judicial nominees. Republicans will be republicans after they become judges. Democrats will be democrats after they become judges. That's just how it is, and we're just pouring sunlight on what is usually an overlooked race.

The difference is that we're honest about being political in this. Others aren't. You can't tell me that gubenatorial appointments are not political. Not when there's $3400 checks involved, as well as more checks to state, local, and federal democrats at the same period. Theresa Brennan bought the seat. If that's not partisan, I don't know what is. Our partisanship is grass roots based however, not good ole boys and good ole girls clubs. The old boys clubs and old ways are threatened by our decisions as a party. Too bad.

I caused a bit of controversey with my comment here on the old questionaire.

....candidates should ignore the questionaires. All I have to say is that candidates do so at their own peril


That was due to some of the political dynamics at the time. I have no regrets about that statement. At that time, it needed to be made. I had a private answer and a public answer on the situation. My public answer is that I supported the questionaires. Publicly, I'll always stand behind the volunteers on the committee. Privately, I'll just say that I made a lot of phone calls to a lot of people on this matter, as my cell phone bill will show in a week. My private stance was that the questionaire shouldn't be tossed but changed slightly due to three questions there that I did not support because of what was implied by them. I'll now say that three of the questions were unacceptable and needed to be taken care of. That should have never been admitted to the press however. I had a quote to the Argus saying that I expect we'd come to an acceptable solution. We did.

The new questionaire passed easily among the committee. This one counts and will be a major factor in determining the decisions our committee makes in these races. My advice. Turn it in quickly, since the decisions will be made soon.

To tip off the candidates who read this blog, these two questions are my favorite and count the most to me. I'll warn everyone that I've very good at reading between the lines and deciphering "politicalspeak".

What is your opinion regarding the role of the judge when it comes to interpreting the law?

Which judges do you admire personally or professionally, and why? Moreover, what have you learned from them and how will that knowledge impact your role on the bench?


Those two questions count the most to this executive committee member's vote.

7 comments:

Page Field said...

I'm not sure about this and perhaps others can comment.

Would it not be wise for Mr. Drick not to sit on the Exec. Committee when running for office. The questionaire would have more clout if Mr. Drick was not on the Exec. Committee. Seems simple to me.

anonymous said...

The point which gets lost in this Argus manufactured controversy is that no candidate is required to fill out or return the questionaire. Lots of groups send these surveys out and candidates normally don't bother to return them when they don't want the endorsement of a specific group.

Since only candidates seeking the endorsement of Republicans will return the survey it is fair for Republicans to ask the questions which they think are important.

The survey itself is really a non-issue. The Argus is only on this crusade because it is an excuse for them to attack leaders on the other end of the political spectrum. If this same survey had been sent out by Democrats nobody ever would have said a thing about it.

Republican Michigander said...

Page Field - I can only speak for myself here. In my case, it really wouldn't matter (when it comes to the survey) if Jay's on the committee or not. It doesn't factor in the questionaire. We also have three other judicial races besides Jay Drick's. We can't just get involved in one as it wouldn't be fair to the other candidates in other races. Our process must be more than just "Go Drick!"

I don't know what endorsement system will be used and I won't speculate what will be. My own preference is similar to the triple grading system used by SAFR-PAC (Shooters Alliance for Firearms Rights) We grade acceptable/unacceptable/mixed/unknown/no response in three categories - surveys, records, and statements made. After our grades, we then determine if an individual is worth an endorsement. There's a no survey-no endorsement policy as well with SAFR. That should be used here as well.

Page Field said...

I agree it really is much about nothing.

Also if the Democrats sent out a survey it probably would not have made news. But when you are the dominate party (Rep) of the region it naturally denotes extra attention from the paper.

Communications guru said...

What don’t you get about nonpartisan? If you don’t like nonpartisan elections and an independent judiciary, then change the law and the Founding Fathers be dammed. If any of the major political parties did something as stupid and as blatantly political as the questionnaire, it would make news, no matter whom the majority party was.

Count Me Red said...

communications guru, what you know about communications would fit in a thimble. The party communicates to it's constituents through endorsements. It gives guidance to OUR folks on candidates we feel align with our values. Similar to what the newspaper does when they endorse, and Right to Life, when they endorse. Don't be afraid of our endorsements. We are speaking to our people as you speak to your readers in EVERY election. We're more open about now, like you are.

Communications guru said...

Again, how about answering the question, what part of nonpartisan do you not understand? Apparently what you know about elections could fit in a thimble, red. The comparison to newspapers is completely wrong because newspapers are independent, much like the judiciary is supposed to be.
If the republicans are going to take the unethical step of endorsing in an independent judicial race, then ask them questions that matter, not how much money they gave to Valde Garcia.
But really, what can we expect from a man like dan who continues to spout untrue and debunked statements like this,
“Theresa Brennan is still the Emily's List pro-abortion democrat. She's still the war protestor. She's still the individual who gave thousands to extremist and incompetent Stabenow who fillibusters Bush's judicial nominees.”

Or this one, “Theresa Brennan bought the seat.” I’ve already posted and debunked this disgusting lie, but he sure never mentions that drick, this die-hard republican, Did try to buy the appointment and made a contribution to the governor. You sure don’t see that anywhere on this blog, except buried in a comment somewhere.

When he says these two questions “count the most to this executive committee member's vote” Am I the only one who falls over with hysterical laughter. Please. Here are the questions he says are important, but anyone with any sense knows the only question that counts is, what’s your party affiliation.
“What is your opinion regarding the role of the judge when it comes to interpreting the law?”

”Which judges do you admire personally or professionally, and why? Moreover, what have you learned from them and how will that knowledge impact your role on the bench? “
Is there any doubt in anyone’s mind that jay drick is going to get the endorsement? I’ll guarantee it right here.